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 .
Priority
1. This application is a divisional of 17/612,401, which has a parent 371 of PCT/US2020/034864 and provisional applications 62/854,126 and 62/954,482, all of which are acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2025 and 10/02/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
3. Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Komaki (2017/0017868).
As to claims 1 and 12: Komaki teaches a reactive radio frequency identification (RFID) strap component for use with a metallic object comprising:
a RFID chip (3, 14, figures 1 and 9);
a conductor component (2, 32); and
a clip component (402, 32lg),
wherein the reactive RFID strap component induces a far field antenna response in the metallic object (metallic objects 5, 30, paragraphs 0047, 0076 explaining metallic, paragraph 0046 explaining that the connection is non-contact, wherein the metallic bodies function as radiators, paragraphs 0050 and 0100).
As to claim 2: Komaki teaches that the clip component is secured to the metallic object (paragraph 0005).
As to claim 3: Komaki teaches that the RFID chip and the conductor component are secured to the clip component (as seen in figures 1 and 9).
As to claims 4-6 and 14: Komaki teaches that the RFID strap component is
coupled to the metallic object via both an electric field and a magnetic field (as this is a contactless coupling, paragraphs 0046-0050, this is an electromagnetic field interaction, paragraph 0005).
As to claim 7: Komaki teaches that the clip component is
relatively flat and comprised of at least one surface deflection (figure 11B).
As to claim 8: Komaki teaches that the clip component is able to
slip over an edge of the metallic object (figure 11B).
As to claim 9: Komaki teaches that the RFID strap component
comprises a stop (figure 11B, where the stop is considered to be the hinge element).
As to claim 11: Komaki teaches that the clip component further
comprises a tab component and a frame component (tab 32lg, frame 32lp).
As to claim 13: Komaki teaches that the clip component further
comprises at least one of: a surface deflection; an adhesive fixing point; or a tab (32lg).
As to claim 14: Komaki teaches that the clip component comprises a tab component and a frame component, and the tab component comprises an edge
section that is aligned with an outside edge section of the frame component (figure 11B, tab 32lg, frame 32lp).
As to claim 15: Komaki teaches that the clip component comprises a tab component encircled by a frame component (figure 11B, tab 32lg, frame 32lp).
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.
4. Claims 10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki (2017/0017868) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Coleman (10,186,765). The teachings of Komaki are discussed above.
As to claim 10: Komaki teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Komaki is silent as to that the RFID strap component comprises an adhesive with a release liner.
Coleman teaches an RFID strap element (column 5, lines 1-8, claim 1), wherein the element comprises an adhesive with a release liner (column 4, lines 12-29).
As to claim 17: Komaki teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Komaki is silent as to die-cutting the clip component.
Coleman teaches an RFID strap element (column 5, lines 1-8, claim 1), wherein the conductive pattern is formed by die-cutting (claim 4).
As to claim 18: Komaki as modified by Coleman teaches the limitations of claim 17.
Komaki is silent as to that the clip components are formatted in rolls and used in a printer and dispensed into a product.
Coleman teaches that the clip components are formatted in rolls and used in a printer and dispensed into a product (claim 4, figure 4 showing the roll of the clip components being die cut, figure 14 explaining this is done as a printing process in a printer).
As to claim 19: Komaki teaches that the clip component is comprised of a frame component and a tab component (tab 32lg, frame 32lp).
As to claim 20: Komaki teaches that wherein the strap component further comprises a conductor component and induces a far field antenna response in the metallic object (metallic objects 5, 30, paragraphs 0047, 0076 explaining metallic, paragraph 0046 explaining that the connection is non-contact, wherein the metallic bodies function as radiators, paragraphs 0050 and 0100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Komaki with the teachings of Coleman so that a well-understood and commonly used fabrication method of RFID elements is used. Coleman explains a roller, printer and die-cutting method with a release layer for adhesive at the bottom of the element, which is known in the art for producing large numbers of RFID elements at high speed production (Coleman, column 1, lines 37-49). This would not require undue testing as production methods are commonly used in the art using rollers, printers and die cutting. As Komaki does not explain what production method is used for the tags, combining the two references would not destroy either of the inventions, as Komaki is merely silent to typical fabrication techniques.
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