DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schilling et al. (US 2019/0152251).
In respect to claims 1, 3, and 5, Schilling et al. disclose a security article comprising: a substrate 14r and an anti-counterfeit label on the substrate [it is noted that a “label” does not denote any particular structure, as claimed, other than adhesion to another substrate]; the label comprising a multifocal microlens array layer 11l (0045), a transparent base film layer 13, and a microimage array 14l (stacked from top to bottom), the multifocal microlens array layer on a first face of the transparent base film and the microimage array layer on a second face of the transparent base film (Fig. 9.4); the multifocal microlens array layer comprising a plurality of microlens arrays, including a first array 14la and a second array 14ra, each having a different focal length and each having “one-to-one correspondence” (0045). The second array 14ra, Schilling et al. further disclose that the microimage arrays may contain an array for both an “image flip” which one of ordinary skill understands to mean “a periodic ordered array of single or multiple sets of subunit patterns” and further moiré elements to “supplement or complement the image flip” which one of ordinary skill understands to be a “floating composite image”; the images may be laser engraved (0109).
In respect to the amended subject matter, Schilling et al. disclose that the microimage arrays may be formed via a laser (0109; 0210-0211). Schilling et al. further disclose that the laser may be exposed through the lens layer, of which any area may arbitrarily be construed as the “first microlens array” and “second microlens array” (0270-0271). Regardless, although product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
In respect to claims 2 and 4, Schilling et al. disclose that the multifocal microlens array layer may be in a quadrangular arrangement, including an equal lateral and longitudinal period (Fig. 2.2).
In respect to claim 6, Schilling et al. disclose a period of 35 μm (both directions).
In respect to claim 10, Schilling et al. disclose different focal lengths for the two arrays, and naturally the second microimage array, which is further from the microlens array, will have the larger focal length, as is readily ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmuller et al. (US 2013/0270813).
Schilling et al. disclose different focal lengths, but do not disclose particular lengths of each, however, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Furthermore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely, selecting standard dimensions of known focusing device, namely, the diameters and/or focal lengths with unexpected result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant contends that the newly amended language, particularly that the second microimage array is laser engraved into the substrate through the second microlens array, distinguishes from Schilling et al. however this is not persuasive for the reasons detailed above. Schilling et al. discloses this method of manufacture, however, it is a product-by-process limitation, where only the resultant product will distinguish.
The 35 USC 112 rejection has been obviated by amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Daniel Troy, can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637