DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to arguments and amendments filed 03/03/2026.
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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ayyagari (8,231,062)
As to claim 1 Ayyagari teaches a method of manufacturing a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag adapted for a non-planar object (figure 2, 14) comprising:
depositing a separator on the non-planar object (step 108, figure 5, wherein the RFID tag is encapsulated with the antenna, which is considered the separator, also seen in figure 4 and 3, wherein 2 is the separator);
forming an antenna on the separator (figures 3-5, element 9, step 108);
positioning a reactive RFID strap on the separator (figures 3-5, element 8, step 108); and
coupling the reactive RFID strap to the antenna to induce a far field antenna response (column 3, lines 23-31, RFID antenna and RFID circuitry are connected, wherein the antenna induces a far antenna field response, as explained in column 2, lines 50-61, and for use in aircraft communications, wherein the antenna is inducing a far antenna signal).
As to claim 2: Ayyagari teaches that a thickness of the separator is adapted to insure stability of the RFID tag (column 2, lines 62-67, paragraph continuing in column 3, column 4 lines 35-39, column 1 lines 19-32, wherein the package is designed for durability).
As to claim 3: Ayyagari teaches that the separator comprises a ramped portion and the antenna is deposited onto the separator, the ramped portion, and into proximity contact with a surface of the non-planar object (figure 2, wherein the upper section is determined to be ramped).
As to claim 4: Ayyagari teaches comprising first applying a base conductor to a surface of the non-planar object and depositing the separator atop the base conductor (figure 2, 12, step 110, wherein the adhesive layer is provided before placing atop the surface, step 118).
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claims are newly rejected by Ayyagari (8,231,062).
Examiner notes that applicant’s argument #3 seems to imply that a wire bond does not fulfill the final clause of claim 1, which is “coupling the reactive RFID strap to the antenna to induce a far field antenna response”. The way this limitation is written, and normally interpreted by examiner, is that the antenna induces a far field antenna response when coupled to the RFID strap. This is not necessarily that the RFID strap and the antenna are in a contactless arrangement, examiner is interpreting that the antenna causes a far field response, which is that is either sends or receives a signal, potentially to a third party. If it is intended that this limitation mean that the elements are in separated contactless arrangement far enough that the antenna is communicating in a far field manner with the RFID strap, then an amendment would clarify this, and examiner would agree that the reference as applied does not teach this limitation. However, as the limitation is written, it is sufficiently broad to contain the interpretation examiner is presenting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TARDIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7810. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11AM-7:30PM. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: david.tardif@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
DAVID TARDIF
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DAVID TARDIF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2876
david.tardif@uspto.gov
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights