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 .
Acknowledgment
This Office Action is responsive to amendment filed on 06/12/2026. The finality of the Office Action mailed on 04/15/2026 is withdrawn and the prosecution of the instant application is now reopened.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 21, 26, 27, 29 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iftime et al. (EP 1918857B1, previously cited) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 108264896A, English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Iftime teaches a method for identifying products (objects), the method comprising the following steps: providing an ink formation containing semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals which, when subject to photon excitation, emit radiation in the range of 800nm ([0001], [0015], [0039], [0048]-[0049] and [0051]); generating a unique code for identifying a product ([0016]); printing the ink formulation onto at least one area of the surface of the product in the form of the unique code ([0001], [0002] and [0063]-[0069]); irradiating the product printed with the ink formulation with photons ([0030], [0048] and [0063]); detecting the radiation emitted by the irradiated product in the range of 800 ([0020], [0030], [0048] and [0063]).
Iftime fails to teach the semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals, when subject to photon excitation of blue or white light, emits radiation in the range of 850-1800 nm.
However, Zhang teaches the semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals (rare earth luminescent material), when subject to photon excitation of blue or white light, emits radiation in the range of 850-1800nm (pages 1-7).
In view of Zhang’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Iftime by incorporating the teaching as taught by Zhang so as to further improve the quantum efficiency and luminous performance (see Zhang: pages 1-7).
Regarding claim 3, Iftime as modified by Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Iftime further teaches wherein the ink formulation is additionally printed onto at least one area of the surface of a packaging group containing the product ([0001], using one the single object inherently encompasses on the package group of a product).
Regarding claim 5, Iftime as modified by Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Iftime further teaches wherein for the purpose of generating the unique code, at least one reference variable of the product is encrypted with the aid of a unique key ([0053]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 6, Iftime as modified by Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Iftime further teaches wherein the unique code is a one-dimensional code, a two-dimensional code or a three-dimensional code, and/or contains one or more patterns ([0016]).
Regarding claim 9, Iftime as modified by Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Iftime further teaches wherein the ink formulation is printed onto at least one area of the surface of the product in other patterns, in addition to the unique code and/or wherein the ink formulation is printed onto at least one area of the surface of the product by means of digital printing ([0026] and [0065]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 12, Iftime as modified by Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Iftime further teaches a terminal is used for the purpose of irradiation and/or detection ([0020] and [0063]).
Regarding claim 13, Iftime as modified by Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Iftime further teaches wherein the semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals are selected from the group consisting of perovskites, I-VI semiconductors, II-VI semiconductors, III-V semiconductors, IV-VI semiconductors, I-III-VI semiconductors, carbon dots and mixtures thereof and/or wherein the semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals are doped with one or more metal ions and/or with one or more rare earth metal ion ([0040]).
Regarding claim 21, Iftime as modified by Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Iftime further teaches wherein the ink formulation contains semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals which have at least one or all of the following properties in common: emission wavelength, emission distribution, emission maximum, or mixtures of semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals which have different values for emission wavelength, emission distribution and emission maximum ([0051] and [0056]).
Regarding claim 26, Iftime teaches an optical security feature on at least one area of the surface of a product ([0001] and [0026]) in the form of a unique code ([0016]), comprising semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals ([0049] and [0051]) which, when subject to photon excitation, emit radiation in the range of 800nm ([0048]).
Iftime fails to teach the semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals, when subject to photon excitation of blue or white light, emits radiation in the range of 850-1800 nm.
However, Zhang teaches the semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals (rare earth luminescent material), when subject to photon excitation of blue or white light, emits radiation in the range of 850-1800nm (pages 1-7).
In view of Zhang’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Iftime by incorporating the teaching as taught by Zhang so as to further improve the quantum efficiency and luminous performance (see Zhang: pages 1-7).
Regarding claim 27, Iftime teaches an optical security feature on at least one area of the surface ([0001] and [0026]), comprising semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals ([0049] and [0056]) which, when subject to photon excitation, emit radiation in the range of 800nm ([0048]).
Iftime fails to teach the semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals, when subject to photon excitation of blue or white light, emits radiation in the range of 850-1800 nm.
However, Zhang teaches the semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals (rare earth luminescent material), when subject to photon excitation of blue or white light, emits radiation in the range of 850-1800nm (pages 1-7).
In view of Zhang’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Iftime by incorporating the teaching as taught by Zhang so as to further improve the quantum efficiency and luminous performance (see Zhang: pages 1-7).
Regarding claim 29, Iftime as modified by Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Iftime further teaches a serialization and/or track-and-trace system comprising an optical security feature which contains a unique code that has been printed onto a product according to claim 1 ([0001]-[0003] and [0047]).
Regarding claim 32, Iftime as modified by Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Iftime further teaches wherein a LED flash of the terminal is used for irradiation and/or the silicon-based image sensor in a camera system of the terminal is used for detection ([0030]).
Claim(s) 2, 20, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iftime as modified by Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barbera-Guillem (US 2011/0101240, previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Iftime as modified by Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for storing the unique code in at least one database; retrieving the detected unique code form the at least one database in order to verify the product.
However, Barbera-Guillem teaches storing the unique code in at least one database; retrieving the detected unique code form the at least one database in order to verify the product ([0044]).
In view of Barbera-Guillem’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iftime and Zhang by incorporating the teaching as taught by Barbera-Guillem so that the object or product can be verified and authenticated (see Barbera-Guillem: [0044]).
Regarding claim 20, Iftime as modified by Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Zhang further teaches the luminescent material has sensitization efficiency in the range of 70%-100% (pages 3 and 4) but silent to the semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals in the ink formulation have a quantum efficiency in the range between 20-100% as claimed.
However, Barbera-Guillem teaches the semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals in the ink formulation have a quantum efficiency in the range between 20-100% ([0014]).
In view of Barbera-Guillem’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iftime and Zhang by incorporating the teachings as taught by Barbera-Guillem since it is just a matter of design option for selecting the range for the quantum efficiency.
Regarding claim 24, Iftime as modified by Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Iftime further teaches wherein the emitting radiation produces an individual fluorescent spectrum ([0030] and [0048]) but silent to the emitted radiation produces an individual fluorescent spectrum, which is stored in at least one database as claimed.
However, Barbera-Guillem teaches emitting radiation produces an individual fluorescent spectrum, which is stored in at least one database ([0044]).
In view of Barbera-Guillem’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iftime and Zhang by incorporating the teaching as taught by Barbera-Guillem in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 25, Iftime as modified by Zhang and Barbera-Guillem teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Iftime further teaches wherein the individual fluorescence spectrum is detected by a spectrometer ([0020]).
Claim(s) 8, 28 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iftime as modified by Zhang, and further in view of Joseph (US 5,637,853, previously cited).
Regarding claims 8, 28 and 31, Iftime as modified by Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for the unique code is generated by printing inaccuracies and printing defects as claimed.
However, Joseph teaches the unique code is generated by printing inaccuracies and printing defects as claimed (fig. 2, the abstract; col. 1, lines 27-42 and col. 3, lines 28-50).
In view of Joseph’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iftime and Zhang by incorporating the teaching as taught by Joseph in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iftime as modified by Zhang as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Fan et al. (US 2013/0140356, previously cited).
Regarding claim 33, Iftime as modified by Zhang teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for the terminal is a smartphone or tablet.
However, Iftime further suggests that any reader can be used to detect the unique code ([0020]). Moreover, Fan teaches using smartphone for detecting machine readable code (fig. 3).
In view of Fan’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iftime and Zhang by using the smartphone to detect the unique code as taught by Fan in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 20, 21, 24-29 and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Iftime, Zhang, Barbera-Guillem, Joseph and Fan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-6:30PM.
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.
/TUYEN K VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights