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 .
1. Acknowledgement is made to the amendment, filed 6/11/2026. Claims 8, 9, 18, & 19 have been canceled. Claims 21-24 have been newly added. Claims 1-7, 10-17, & 20-24 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 1-7, 10-17, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsirline et al. (US 2007/0262873 A1), hereinafter Tsirline.
Regarding claim 1, Tsirline discloses a coupler for a radio frequency identification (RFID) enabled system adapted to couple a transceiver of the RFID enabled system with a targeted transponder from among a group of multiple adjacent transponders, the coupler comprising:
a first ground plane (52 – first ground plane) and a second ground plane (60 – second ground plane) on opposing sides of the coupler [0040, 0041, & Fig. 3]; and,
a conductive strip (56 – conductive strip) for propagating a plurality of electromagnetic fields from an edge of the coupler, the conductive strip positioned at least partially between the first ground plane and the second ground plane, the conductive strip having a bottom edge having a first tapered edge portion, a second tapered edge portion, and a center portion therebetween, the second tapered edge portion being a mirror image of the first tapered edge portion, each of the first and second tapered edge portions comprising two or more steps, wherein the steps on each of the first and second tapered edge portions are uniform, evenly spaced, and periodic [0016, 0055, & Figs. 2b & 3].
Regarding claim 2, Tsirline discloses the coupler of Claim 1, further comprising a first printed circuit board sandwiched between the first ground plane and the conductive strip and a second printed circuit board sandwiched between the second ground plane and the conductive strip [0042-0045].
Regarding claim 3, Tsirline discloses the coupler of Claim 1, wherein each of the two or more steps of each of the first and second tapered edge portions are squared [0016 & 0055].
Regarding claim 4, Tsirline discloses the coupler of Claim 1, wherein each of the two or more steps of each of the first and second tapered edge portions are convex [0016 & 0055].
Regarding claim 5, Tsirline discloses the coupler of Claim 1, wherein each of the two or more steps of each of the first and second tapered edge portions are concave [0016 & 0055].
Regarding claim 6, Tsirline discloses the coupler of Claim 1, wherein each of the two or more steps of each of the first and second tapered edge portions are angled [0016 & 0055].
Regarding claim 7, Tsirline discloses the coupler of Claim 1, wherein the center portion of the bottom edge is one of straight, convex, or concave [0016 & 0055].
Regarding claim 10, Tsirline discloses the coupler of Claim 1, wherein the RFID enabled system is a printer [0034-0036].
Regarding claim 11, Tsirline discloses a radio frequency identification (RFID) printer-encoder adapted to print and encode a plurality of media units, at least some of the plurality of media units comprising an RFID transponder, the printer-encoder comprising:
a printhead (28 – printhead) for printing indicia onto the media units [0035 & Fig. 1];
a media conveyance system adapted to convey the plurality of media units to the printhead and a transponder encoding region along a feed path in a feed direction [0035-0037];
a transceiver (42 - transceiver) configured to provide communication signals corresponding to information to be encoded on the RFID transponder (26 - transponder) [0035-0038]; and,
a coupler electrically connected to the transceiver and adapted to encode a targeted transponder in the transponder encoding region [0038, 0040, 0041, & 0047], the coupler comprising:
a first ground plane (52 – first ground plane) and a second ground plane (60 – second ground plane) on opposing sides of the coupler [0040, 0041, & Fig. 3]; and,
a conductive strip (56 – conductive strip) for propagating a plurality of electromagnetic fields from an edge of the coupler, the conductive strip positioned at least partially between the first ground plane and the second ground plane, the conductive strip having a bottom edge having a first tapered edge portion, a second tapered edge portion, and a center portion therebetween, the second tapered edge portion being a mirror image of the first tapered edge portion, each of the first and second tapered edge portions comprising two or more steps, wherein the steps on each of the first and second tapered edge portions are uniform, evenly spaced, and periodic [0016, 0055, & Figs. 2b & 3].
Regarding claim 12, Tsirline discloses the printer-encoder of Claim 11, wherein the coupler further comprises a first printed circuit board sandwiched between the first ground plane and the conductive strip, and a second printed circuit board sandwiched between the second ground plane and the conductive strip [0042-0045].
Regarding claim 13, Tsirline discloses the printer-encoder of Claim 11, wherein each of the two or more steps of each of the first and second tapered edge portions of the coupler are squared [0016 & 0055].
Regarding claim 14, Tsirline discloses the printer-encoder of Claim 11, wherein each of the two or more steps of each of the first and second tapered edge portions of the coupler are convex [0016 & 0055].
Regarding claim 15, Tsirline discloses the printer-encoder of Claim 11, wherein each of the two or more steps of each of the first and second tapered edge portions of the coupler are concave [0016 & 0055].
Regarding claim 16, Tsirline discloses the printer-encoder of Claim 11, wherein each of the two or more steps of each of the first and second tapered edge portions of the coupler are angled [0016 & 0055].
Regarding claim 17, Tsirline discloses the printer-encoder of Claim 11, wherein the center portion of the bottom edge of the coupler is one of straight, convex, or concave [0016 & 0055].
Regarding claim 20, Tsirline discloses the printer-encoder of Claim 11, wherein the coupler is positioned downstream of the printhead along the feed path [0034-0036].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
3. Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsirline.
With respect to claims 21-24, the teachings of Tsirline have been discussed above.
Tsirline is silent with respect to explicitly disclosing wherein the conductive strip has a length of 42 mm along a longitudinal axis of the coupler, a height of 8 mm along a vertical axis of the coupler, and a width of 0.35 mm along an axis orthogonal to the longitudinal axis and the vertical axis, as recited in claims 21 & 23, and wherein the coupler has a length of 80 mm along a longitudinal axis of the coupler, a height of 20 mm along a vertical axis of the coupler, and a width of 3.2 mm along an axis orthogonal to the longitudinal axis and the vertical axis, as recited in claims 22 & 24.
However, Tsirline discloses overall dimensions for a conductive strip and a stripline antenna-coupler as an example only [0046]. Furthermore, Tsirline teaches that it is known to adjust the dimensions of the conductive strip in order to “achieve proper coupling with a targeted transponder” and to produce a desired operating bandwidth of the antenna-coupler” [0053].
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that other dimensions, including those recited in claims 21-24, would have been an obvious matter of design choice based upon the intended application, desired operating bandwidth, and specifics to the environment of use and dimensions required.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, see pages 6 & 7 of the Remarks, filed 6/11/2026, that “Tsirline does not disclose, either expressly or inherently, the claimed conductive strip having two tapered edge portions that are mirror images of each other and comprise steps that are uniform, evenly spaced, and periodic, and therefore does not anticipate the amended claims”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant recites portions of paragraphs [0016] & [0055] and the examiner agrees that these portions clearly meet the claimed limitations. Specifically, the last portion of paragraph [0055] recites that “one in the art would appreciate the various possible tapered profiles including, but not limited to, exponential, triangular, Klopfenstein, and Hecken taper profiles.” The disclosure of the use of a Klopfenstein taper profile is known to those of ordinary skill in the art as comprising a plurality of steps. The examiner has cited additional references to illustrate this, see paragraph [0073] of Darwish et al. (US 2015/0002243 A1) and paragraph [0026] of Woods et al. (US 2009/0066441 A1), both teaching the use of a Klopfenstein taper which include uniform, discrete steps. The claims have been rejected accordingly.
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 PAULTEP SAVUSDIPHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-1301. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F,7-3 EST. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: paultep.savusdiphol@uspto.gov
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 and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas K. 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 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.
/PAULTEP SAVUSDIPHOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights