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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response and amendment dated 4/23/26 are acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-16 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (“Process-Dependence on Inkjet Printed Folded Dipole Antenna for 2.45 GHz RFID Tags”, published in the 2009 3rd European Conference on Antennas and Propagation, 23-27 March 2009, previously cited)1 in view of Bohn (US 2010/0032487, previously cited).2 Regarding claims 1 and 14, Shao teaches a radio frequency identification tag assembly and object to be identified, characterized in that the radio frequency identification tag assembly comprises: a conductive radiation medium, the conductive radiation medium comprising a first portion and a second portion, spaced apart from each other to define a gap therebetween the first portion and the second portion (see gap in Fig. 1); and a thin film antenna, the thin film antenna (Section II: nano-silver film) comprising a PCB (Section II: PCB) and metal conductive wires extending in different directions from two sides of the PCB (see extension of the portions on either side of the antenna in Fig. 1); wherein the conductive radiation medium is electrically coupled to the thin film antenna via the spacing, such that the strongest electric filed is formed at the gap (Section II: Antenna Characteristics). Shao does not explicitly teach an insulating attachment member, the insulating attachment member spacing apart the conductive radiation medium and the thin film antenna. Bohn teaches an insulating attachment member, the insulating attachment member spacing apart the conductive radiation medium and the thin film antenna (paragraph 0024: the adhesive layer serves as the attachment member, the silicone layer insulates). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Shao and Bohn so as to define a spacing therebetween, because such a combination reduces the need for complex contacts for coupling (paragraph 0009 of Bohn).3 Regarding claim 2, Shao further teaches the thin film antenna is positioned such that the PCB is aligned with the gap (see gap and PCB in Fig. 1). Regarding claim 3, Shao further teaches the metal conductive wires extend respectively above the first portion and the second portion of the conductive radiation medium (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 4, Shao further teaches an impedance matching between the thin film antenna and the conductive radiation medium is achieved by adjusting lengths of the metal conductive wires on the two sides of the PCB (Section III-C). Regarding claim 5, Shao further teaches the thin film antenna is oriented at an angle with respect to a direction in which the gap extends, in a plane parallel to the conductive radiation medium (see gap and PCB in Fig. 1). Regarding claim 6, Bohn further teaches the thin film antenna is attached to the insulating attachment member, and the insulating attachment member is attached to the conductive radiation medium (paragraph 0024). Regarding claim 7, Bohn further teaches a shape of the insulating attachment member is larger than a shape of the thin film antenna (paragraph 0024). Regarding claim 8, Bohn further teaches a recess is formed within the PCB for accommodating an IC chip (paragraph 0019: RFID chip 3 serves as an IC chip). Regarding claim 9, Bohn further teaches soldered portions of the IC chip and the metal conductive wires are located above a top surface of the PCB (paragraph 0019). Regarding claim 10, Shao further teaches the PCB further comprises a groove for accommodating soldered portions of the IC chip and the metal conductive wires (see gap and PCB in Fig. 1). Regarding claim 11, Bohn further teaches the radio frequency identification tag assembly further comprises a bottom insulating layer and a top insulating layer, wherein the conductive radiation medium, the thin film antenna, and the insulating attachment member are encapsulated between the bottom insulating layer and the top insulating layer (paragraph 0024). Regarding claim 12, Bohn further teaches a material of the bottom insulating layer and the top insulating layer is the same as a material of the insulating attachment member (paragraph 0024). Regarding claim 13, Bohn further teaches the bottom insulating layer and the top insulating layer are integrally formed (paragraph 0024). Regarding claim 15, Bohn further teaches the object to be identified comprises a curved three-dimensional structure, and the radio frequency identification tag assembly is configured to surround the curved three-dimensional structure (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited art fails to disclose all limitations of the claims. Applicant’s Remarks dated 4/23/26, pages 7-10. In particular, Applicant argues that the cited art fails to disclose “a first portion and a second portion, spaced apart from each other to define a gap therebetween the first portion and the second portion”, “an insulating attachment member, configured to space apart the conductive radiation medium and the thin film antenna to define a spacing therebetween”, and “the conductive radiation medium is electrically coupled to the thin film antenna via the spacing, such that the strongest electric filed is formed at the gap.” Id. Shao discloses a first portion and a second portion, spaced apart from each other to define a gap therebetween the first portion and the second portion” in the gap in Fig. 1. The claim does not recite any limitation regarding the end of the portions, so Applicant’s discussion regarding no connection at the ends, so Applicant’s Remarks regarding this alleged difference are unpersuasive. Applicant’s Remarks, page 9. “[A]n insulating attachment member, configured to space apart the conductive radiation medium and the thin film antenna to define a spacing therebetween” and “the conductive radiation medium is electrically coupled to the thin film antenna via the spacing, such that the strongest electric filed is formed at the gap” are rendered obvious by the combination of Shao and Bohn for the reasons set forth above in the rejection.
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 MATTHEW MIKELS whose telephone number is (571)270-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7:30 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET, Friday 7:30 AM ET - 11:30 AM ET, the Examiner is on central time.4
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.
/MATTHEW MIKELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
1 See Non-patent literature dated 2/9/26.
2 In addition to the cited portions of each reference, please see also the associated figures.
3 See also additional discussion below.
4 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.
Prosecution Insights