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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 2, “the direction of an incoming signal” lacks antecedent basis.
Re claim 6, a “single sided substrate” is indefinite because a substrate is interpreted to have at least a top/ bottom.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Schiffer (US 20220121897).
Schiffer teaches a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) ring comprising:
a main body having an annular shape and comprising a flexible substrate extending along the perimeter of said main body (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2D+);
a main antenna configured to provide energy to a RFID chip (each transponder 14 of the array 12 has an antenna);
an array of booster antennas comprising two or more booster antennas, said booster antennas being coupled to said main antenna (the other of the transponders 14 of the array 12),
wherein said main antenna and said booster antennas are formed on said flexible substrate and they are one adjacent to the other (FIG. 2A+), and
wherein said main antenna and said booster antennas are distributed along the length of said flexible substrate so that any antenna of said array is coupled to said main antenna either directly or indirectly via one or more of the other antennas of said array (the antennas are coupled to each other at least through the non-metallic material 38 which couples all the antennas together, at least indirectly). The Examiner notes that a main and booster antenna has not been clarified structurally in the claim, so a first antenna can be interpreted as a main and the other antennas as boosters. The Examiner also notes that “coupling” has not been specified in the claims to prevent physical coupling of the antennas via the material 38.
Re claims 3-4, FIG. 2B shows even distribution.
Re claim 5, FIG. 2B+ teaches such limitations.
Re claim 6, the antennas are formed on the same side of the substrate such as at 38.
Re claim 7, the boosters antennas are interpreted to have one portion in common in that they are transponders, interpreted as the same, and thus as such have common portions (same portions) for each transponder, such as shaped antenna.
Re claims 8-9, such limitations are read on by different transponders being directly opposite to each other (such as one transponder at 12 o’clock and another transponder at 6 o’clock, so that one is considered on a top side, and another on a bottom side.
Re claim 10, paragraph [0041]+ teaches the use of aerogel and non-metallic material, interpreted as substrates. As the transponders are surrounded on both sides by 36/38/40, this is interpreted as the antennas being formed on a first side of a first substrate and a second side of an additional substrate. The transponders are encased or embedded in aerogel and then the transponders are covered with a non-metallic mater and carbon fiber 40. Thus, the transponders (antennas) are interpreted as being formed on the first and second sides of first and second substrates.
Re claim 11, as discussed above, as the transponders are sandwiched between substrates, this is interpreted to read on antennas formed on a first side of a substrate and a second side of an additional substrate due to being sandwiched.
Re claim 12, two adjacent booster antennas formed on different sides is interpreted to be read on by a left and a right (different sides) or opposite sides on the circumference of the ring (top and bottom). They are interpreted to have an overlaying portion because they overlay / are formed on the ring, and/ or because they overlay other portions/ parts of the ring.
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.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiffer, as discussed above.
Re claims 13-15, the teachings of Schiffer have been discussed above. Though silent to the type of antennas (printed/ etched/ wire embedded), the Examiner notes that the type antennas are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, as one of a plurality of options selectable based on their predictable results. Even further, the method of forming the device is not germane to the structure of the device. The use of known antenna forming techniques is well within the ordinary skill in the art such as for size, cost, light weight, customization of applications, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I. WALSH/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
