Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/248,102

RFID TAG ASSEMBLY AND OBJECT TO BE IDENTIFIED INCLUDING RFID TAG ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 24, 2025
Examiner
MIKELS, MATTHEW
Art Unit
2876
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Shuyou (Shanghai)Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
1044 granted / 1292 resolved
+12.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1324
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
43.0%
+3.0% vs TC avg
§102
38.4%
-1.6% vs TC avg
§112
4.4%
-35.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1292 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claims 1-16 are pending. Claim Objections Claims 1-16 objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite the acronym “PCB.” The acronym should be defined at the first use to avoid any possibility of confusion in the claims.1 Appropriate correction is required. 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, et al (“Process-Dependence of 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, herein Shao)2 in view of Bohn, et al. (US 2010/0032487, herein Bohn).3 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, with a gap between the first portion and the second portion (see gap s in Fig. 1); and a thin film antenna, the thin film antenna (Section II: nano-silver film) comprising a PCB4 (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) 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, because such a combination reduces the need for complex contacts for coupling (paragraph 0009 of Bohn). 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. The cited art fails to disclose the particular three dimensional shape and structure as recited in claim 16. Conclusion 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 7:00 AM ET - 4:30 PM ET, Friday 7:00 AM ET - 11:00 AM ET, the Examiner is on central time.5 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 It is noted that “PCB” is defined in the specification as being “printed circuit board”, but definition in the claims ensures no confusion or issues. 2 See 892 form for the full citation. A copy of this reference is attached to this Office Action. 3 In addition to the cited portions of each reference, please see also the associated figures. 4 See objection to claims 1-16 above. 5 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 24, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597011
System and method to dynamically evaluate patterns in smart card operations
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591754
SMART CONNECTED FILM AND PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585908
VISUAL MARKER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573272
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ATM SESSION CACHING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572767
Method for processing data from one- or two-dimensional code, and corresponding devices and program
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.4%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1292 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month