DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/22/25 has been entered. Currently claims 1-20 and pending and claims 18 and 19 are withdrawn.
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 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argoitia (EP 2062947 A1).
As to claim 1, 4, 7, and 14-17, Argoitia discloses opaque flakes such as pigment or bright flakes used in paints or inks having selected shapes and/or indicia to provide a covert security feature to an object. As seen in figure 11a and 11b, a substrate 110 has a boundary of a hallow flake and a boundary of a solid flake. The markings are each independently configured to depress down from the plane and as seen in the figure hollow flake surrounds the solid flake. The second marking is a wall delimiting the solid flake and the second marking depresses down a depth of greater than or the same as the first marking and the first marking does not depress down an entire height of the substrate. Figure 11 shows a cut-away section of the substrate and that other flakes (showing a set of flakes) would be on the substrate (paragraph 93). However, this reference is silent to the shape of the complementary flake being a complement of a shape of the solid flake.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Argoitia and formed the hollow flake to be a shape that complements the shape of the solid flake as this would be an aesthetic design choice in determining the appearances and images being portrayed.
As to claim 2, Argoitia discloses a coating layer formed on the substrate that conforms to the surface of the substrate (paragraph 93).
As to claim 3, the substrate is formed of a foil.
As to claims 5, 6, 8 and 9, Argoitia discloses that the marking can have different heights or even the same heights for the frame and the logos or symbols and different types of symbols and logos and indicia can be used. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have had the first and second marking to have the same depth or had the second marking depress down a deeper depth and had the first marking be continuous or discontinuous as these would be aesthetic design choices in determining the appearances and images being portrayed.
As to claims 10-13, the sheet further discloses a third marking as seen in figure 11a and 11b and is the form of a logo or text and figure 11b shows the depth of the depressions.
As to claim 20, the coating comprises at least one special effect pigment such as color shift pigments and solvents.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights