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 § 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 9 and 18 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.
Claims 9 and 18 (which depends on claim 5 and 14, respectively) recites that the length of the top layer is “adjustable” to adjust a center frequency of the RFID tag component. The Examiner notes that claim 5 is a device claim. A RFID tag component of claim 5 has a top layer as recited. In order to have a different center frequency resulting from a different length top layer length, there would be a different RFID tag component. Claims 9/18 appears to be drawn to a method of making, wherein various manufacturing variables can be adjusted to produce a final product RFID tag component and where adjusting such variables can impact the final product, but such a recitation is vague/ indefinite when applied to a device claim because it is unclear how the structure is limited by the language.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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) 5-9 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 20220121898).
Yamamoto et al. teaches an RFID tag component, characterized in that the RFID tag component comprises one end and other end along a length direction, and further comprises:
a substrate (top three horizontal rows of element 21 of FIG. 2);
a first through hole (41, 42, 43, 44), arranged at the one end of the RFID tag component in the substrate;
a second through hole (other of 41, 42, 43, 44), arranged at the other end of the RFID tag component in the substrate;
a bottom layer (last row of 21 per FIG. 2 or 32), located at a bottom of the substrate, one end of the bottom layer close to the one end of the RFID tag component, other end of the bottom layer close to the other end of the RFID tag component;
a middle layer (33 per FIG. 2), located between a top and the bottom of the substrate, one end of the middle layer electrically connected to the one end of the bottom layer through the first through hole, other end of the middle layer connected to the other end of the bottom layer through the second through hole, the middle layer comprising a gap (FIG. 2 shows gaps, and the middle layer is connected electrically to the bottom layer 32 by through holes 42 and 43 which are interpreted to provide signals through the electrically conducting layer 31).
a chip, bonded to the middle layer across the gap of the middle layer (chip is bonded/ connected to the middle layer such as through the through holes and it is interpreted as extending across the gap horizontally above the gap);
a top layer (60 or 31), located on the top of the substrate, one end of the top layer spaced apart from the one end of the RFID tag component, other end of the top layer spaced apart from the other end of the RFID tag component, the top layer comprising a hole, the mechanical hole at least partially overlapping the gap of the middle layer, the chip accommodated in the mechanical hole. Though silent to a “mechanical” hole, the Examiner has interpreted that there is a space/ hole for the chip to be accommodated, and thus is interpreted as functionally equivalent to a mechanical hole.
The Examiner notes that 43 and 42 are interpreted as at different ends, but though silent to being at the absolute/ very ends (horizontally) the Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of circuit design to do so based on circuit layout/ design/ sizing as merely moving through holes while maintaining functional connectivity would not provide unexpected results.
PNG
media_image1.png
369
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 6, the gap is interpreted as located in the middle of the middle layer, and the Examiner notes that prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make slight adjustments to positioning for expected results of size/ layout/ design as doing so does not produce unexpected results.
Re claim 7, a top layer projection is interpreted to overlap (FIG. 2).
Re claim 8, the top layer is symmetrical (FIG. 2).
Re claim 9, the Examiner notes that though silent to adjusting the length of the top layer, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to do so based on system/ design constraints.
Re claims 14-18, the limitations have been discussed above. Though silent to RFID in tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to embed/ place in a cavity in an axial orientation such as to monitor/ automate/ track tools, wherein placement in a direction would have been obviated based on the housing./ shape/ body/ handle of the tool. Further, as the structure of the component (adjustable top layer) is obviated based on design constraints/ sizing/ cost, the Examiner notes that it is interpreted to meet structural limitations of adjusting a length of a top layer.
Claim(s) 14-18 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 20220121898) in view of Kennedy (US 20250225356).
The teachings of Yamamoto et al. have been discussed above but are silent to a tool
comprising the RFID tag component.
Kennedy at paragraph [0063]+ teaches an RFID tag in a tool handle, and FIG. 2A+ shows the axial direction. It would have been obvious to be in a cavity to recess/ mount.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings such as to track/ inventory/ automate tools with RFID tags.
Claim(s) 14-18 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 20220121898) in view of Lehovetzki (US 20160140432).
The teachings of Yamamoto et al. have been discussed above but are silent to a tool
comprising the RFID tag component.
Lehovetzki teaches at FIG. 5A+ teaches an RFID tag in a tool interpreted as in a cavity in an axial direction.
direction. It would have been obvious to be in a cavity to recess/ mount.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings such as to track/ inventory/ automate tools with RFID tags.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re Applicants argument 1.1 that the middle layer (33) is FIG. 2 does not show a gap and that 33a is a through hole rather than a gap, the Examiner notes that 33 has a gap/ space for the connection conductor to pass through (FIG. 2), interpreted as a gap.
Re Applicants argument 1.2 that Yamamoto does not disclose that the middle layer (33) is connected electrically to the bottom layer (last row of 21 or 32), the Examiner notes that through holes 42/43 connects the middle layer to the bottom layer 32 by providing signals through the conducing layer 31. The middle layer 33 is capacitively coupled to the layer 21 (paragraph [0064]+) which is a form of electrically coupled signal transfer (electric field created by capacitance) which is a type of electrical coupling. The use of the through holes provide signals which are used to form the coupling.
Re the Applicants argument 2.1 that FIG. 2 that Yamamoto does not have a gap at the middle layer (33) and therefore cannot have a chip bonded to the middle layer across the gap of the middle layer, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is a gap in the middle layer (33) where (44) is. The chip is bonded to the middle layer as it bonded and connects using (43). Thus Yamamoto has a gap at the middle layer and a chip is bonded to the middle layer. The chip extends across the gap at (35). The chip is bonded to the middle layer and is across the gap of the middle layer as it’s on the other side. The claim does not recite that the bonding connects two opposing sides of the gap.
Re the Applicants argument 2.2 that the chip is not bonded to the middle layer, the Examiner notes that it is bonded to the middle layer through the various intermediate layers/substrates. The claim does not recite it is bonded directly to the middle layer, for example. Being bonded to a top layer which is subsequently bonded to the middle layer reads on such limitations.
Re the Applicants argument 2.3 that the chip of Yamamoto is not bonded/ connected to the middle layer, the Examiner disagrees and notes that the chip is bonded/ connected to the middle layer as discussed above re 2.1. The claim does not recite that the chip extends from one side of the gap to the other side of the gap and is attached at both sides of the gap to the middle layer.
Re the Applicants argument 2 that such limitation are merely adjustments, the Examiner ahs specified that 42 and 43 are interpreted to be at different ends, as they are each on opposing sides of a midpoint of the structure, and thus are interpreted at one and other ends, as they are biased thereto.
Re the Applicants response to the 112 rejection, the Examiner maintains the rejection. Again, the Examiner notes that such limitations are indefinite because the length of the top layer of a single device is not intpereted as adjustable. As part of its manufacturing, the top layer is believed to be able to be formed with different lengths, but an RFID tag component (device) claim with an adjustable length of a top layer is indefinite because a top layer has a finite length and as a physical property is not interpreted as being adjustable at the device level. While a method of manufacturing could produce different lengthened layers for different devices, the claim is drawn to a device, and therefore having an adjustable layer appears to be reciting limitations that are not using terminology that is inconsistent with accepted meanings. If the Applicants wants to recite that manufacturing of the top layer at different lengths is possible based on the desired center frequency, then perhaps a method of making/ forming is appropriate. For a device claim, an adjust length top layer is vague/ indefinite because a top layer length appears drawn to a manufacturing step, not a structural limitation of the device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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 Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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 I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876