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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 10/24/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-15, 64, 67, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pranov et al (US 2016/0070999 A1) as evidenced by of Boonsom et al (US 2016/0258784 A1).
Pranov teaches a mold including a surface shaped to impart a 2D code to a plastic item molded thereby (e.g., a mold with an array of individual areas of optical anisotropic surface structures used to mold polymer parts).; wherein the mold includes an array of individual areas comprising multiple and different sized features (i.e., and corresponding depressions) that result in both reflective and diffractive structures on the molded part (i.e., the 2D code comprising a 2D array of cells that spans at least part of said mold surface, at least some cells in said array being marked by a depression in said surface to thereby define a 2D code pattern, the mold surface defining a top surface level that extends in two lateral directions, said depressions extending in a depth direction perpendicular to said two lateral directions); wherein multiple cells each includes one or more depressions, and each of said depressions in a cell is defined, in part, by a closed boundary within the cell where the depression meets the top surface level of the mold surface (fig 5); wherein in order to make the array as small as possible, each individual area should also be as small as possible and the distance between two individual areas should also be as small as possible in order to make the total area as small as possible and in order to get as high contrast as possible, as this area is not able to change contrast, and will only give rise to background noise in the image (i.e., adjust the total area as small as possible to preserve clarity of the molded item) (abstract, para 5-7, 17).
Hence, in regard to the array of equal-area cells, the lateral area and size of the depressions, the number of depressions in each cell and/or total number of depressions, the shape and/or type and depth of each depression (and therein said second surface roughness in relation so said first surface roughness); one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, based on the teachings of Pranov, would have recognized all of these variables would have affected the final 2D code transferred to the molded part. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the array of equal-area cells, the lateral area and size of the depressions, the number of depressions in each cell and/or total number of depressions, the shape and/or type and depth of each depression formed in the mold based on the desired 2D code to be transferred to the final part.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the second surface roughness in regards to the first surface roughness, so the second surface roughness is prominent and will properly form the desired 2D code on the final surface of the molded part without unnecessary noise or interference from surface roughness outside the depressions.
With regard to the limitation “said mold surface has a first surface roughness, outside said depressions, of less than 2 microns;” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to minimize the roughness of the mold surface outside of the depressions to prevent additional structure being added to the final molded part that would interfere or create noise with the 2D code that is transferred to the molded part.
Pranov fails to expressly teach “wherein said depressions impart optically detectable contrast through surface roughness differences between them and cells without said depressions whereby; wherein the optically detectable contrast is created by diffuse scattering of light from said depressions and specular reflection of light from the cells without said depressions whereby said 2D code pattern is obtained via optically detectable contrast differences” “in which said depressions impart rotationally independent optically detectable contrast;” and “wherein the 2D code pattern is detectable via contrast difference introduced through differences between the first surface roughness and the second surface roughness.” However, Pranov suggests or would have otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the structures and features of the mold including a surface shaped to impart a 2D code to a plastic item molded thereby of the instant claims, so it is deemed to inherently possess these properties or functions. This is an intended function that largely relies on the chosen transmitter and sensor calibrated for detection.
Furthermore, the 2D code of Pranov will result in an array of depressions separated by areas of a smooth surface (fig 5); which would inherently possess the properties of specular reflection of light (smooth areas) and diffuse scattering of light (roughness or depressions); and using such properties to optically detect the information pertained in 2D codes was known in the art at the time of invention.
This phenomenon is reinforced by Boonsom which teaches optically contrasting elements may include an array of anisotropic reflecting regions that has a first light distribution for light reflected along a first direction and have a second, wider light distribution along a second direction. In some cases, the anisotropic reflecting regions may diffuse or spread the light along a direction that corresponds to the length of the feature, which may improve the ability to detect reflected light consistently and reliably even though there may be dimensional variations or movement between various components of the encoder. Additionally, the anisotropic reflecting regions may reflect the light in a non-distributed or specular manner in a direction perpendicular to the length of the feature to improve the contrast between reflective and non-reflective regions (para 6). Hence, Boonsom suggest the optical anisotropic surface structures of Pranov could be tuned or structured in a 2D code pattern that is obtained via optically detectable contrast differences, wherein the optically detectable contrast is created by diffuse scattering of light from said depressions and specular reflection of light from the cells without said depressions
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to additionally optimize the pattern of the 2D code so as to be the optically detectable by diffuse scattering of light from said depressions and specular reflection of light from the cells without said depressions; wherein said pattern of the 2D code is rotationally independent optically detectable contrast for ease of sensing or scanning.
With regard to the limitations “a clear plastic item” and “wherein the aggregate area of depressions is less than 5% of the total coded area to preserve clarity of the clear plastic item;” Pranov suggests clear plastic molded items (e.g, petri dishes) (para 36, 61). Pranov further suggests its array results in reflection or diffraction (para 13, 16); which would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the array would cause distortion or interfere with the optical clarity of the clear item. Therefore, it would have been obvious to minimize the size of the array, and there in the aggregate area of depressions, to minimize the effects of distortion caused by the array or to optimize the optical clarity of the remaining surface absent the array.
Claims 65 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pranov as evidenced by Boonsom as applied to claim 64 above, and further in view of Tyson, II (US 2022/0274206 A1).
Pranov teaches the mold including a surface shaped to impart a 2D code to a plastic item molded thereby of instant claim 64. Pranov further teaches its 2D codes comprise message data (e.g., hyperlink or packaging contents) (para 59, 60 ).
Pranov fails to suggest wherein the 2D code comprises a synchronization signal component to provide geometric synchronization; in which the geometric synchronization comprises rotation and scale synchronization.
Tyson teaches marking panels or substrates with 2D codes (para 8-11); wherein the codes are used to spatially synchronize (i.e., a geometric synchronization comprises rotation and scale synchronization) a CAD and CRI for the part or substrate (para 11, 19).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, per the teachings of Tyson, to include 2d codes used to spatially synchronize in the mold surface of Pranov for a final molded plastic item that includes 2D codes with spatially (i.e., in a way that relates to space and the position, area, and size of things) synchronization, and therein the synchronization signal component is expressed where the message data is also expressed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in view of a new combination of prior art of record. The Applicant is directed to the 35 USC § 103 section above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ward (1992) teaches anisotropic reflectance models that depend both on diffuse reflectance and specular reflectance (para 268).
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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783