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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 6, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160276056A1 (hereinafter Stolyarov), in view of Vaskova, Hana, and Pavel Valasek. "Authentication of Czech Banknotes using Raman Microscopy." The Tenth International Conference on Emerging Security Information, Systems and Technologies. 2016 (hereinafter Vaskova), and further in view of GB 2564166 A (hereinafter Komkrit).
Regarding claim 6, Stolyarov teaches a method for tagging an article with a Raman-detectible composition comprising two or more different Raman-active 2D materials, the method comprising: (i) dispersing the Raman-detectible composition (para [0041]; the compositions can be both particles and flakes) within the article (para [0037]), wherein the article is not a metal (para [0037]; solid polymer is not a metal); or (ii) applying the Raman-detectible composition to the surface of the article, optionally wherein the Raman-detectible composition also comprises a binder; thereby linking the article and the Raman spectrum of the Raman-detectible composition (this is shown in fig. 1, para [0044]) or a code derivable from the Raman spectrum; and wherein each of the two or more different Raman-active 2D materials are in the form of particles or flakes which have a thickness is significantly very small compared to the length (para [0071]; this means both the 2D materials have thicknesses that are significantly very small compared to the lengths).
Stolyarov fails to teach recording the link between the article and the Raman spectrum or code as an indication of authenticity of the article; wherein the Raman-active 2D materials have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50.
Vaskova, from the same field of endeavor as Stolyarov, teaches recording the link between the article and the Raman spectrum or code as an indication of authenticity of the article (this is shown in fig. 5, the article is the banknote and the inks are the 2D materials; authenticity is done by using spectral library, Abstract last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Vaskova to Stolyarov to have recording the link between the article and the Raman spectrum or code as an indication of authenticity of the article in order to verify the questionable banknotes (Abstract last sentence).
Stolyarov, when modified by Vaskova, does not explicitly teach wherein the Raman-active 2D materials have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50.
Komkrit, from the same field of endeavor as Stolyarov, teaches wherein the Raman-active 2D materials have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50 (p. 9 para 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Komkrit to Stolyarov, when modified by Vaskova, to have wherein the Raman-active 2D materials have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50 (p. 9 para 1-2) in order to cover more surface area in the article, thus, optimizing the Raman detection.
Note that Komkrit only teaches graphene particles, however, Stolyarov teaches two or more Raman-active 2D materials.
It would be obvious to try using the teaching dimension of Komkrit to the other Raman 2D material to have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50 in Stolyarov in order to also cover more surface area in the article, thus, optimizing the Raman detection.
Regarding claim 11, Stolyarov teaches a method comprising: (a) measuring and obtaining the Raman spectrum of a material comprising a Raman detectible composition comprising two or more different Raman-active 2D materials (the spectrum is shown in fig. 1 and the two or more different Raman-active 2D materials are in para [0041]), wherein each of the two or more different Raman-active 2D materials are in the form of particles or flakes (para [0041]).
Stolyarov fails to teach which have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50; (b) comparing the obtained Raman spectrum with reference data for each of the two or more different 2D materials in order to determine the presence, and optionally the quantities, of the two or more different 2D materials; (c) generating a code based on the presence, and optionally the quantities, of the two or more different 2D materials; and (d) comparing the generated code with a known code to determine the authenticity of the material.
Vaskova, from the same field of endeavor as Stolyarov, teaches “(b) comparing the obtained Raman spectrum with reference data for each of the two or more different 2D materials in order to determine the presence, and optionally the quantities, of the two or more different 2D materials” (Abstract last sentence; the Raman spectrum with reference data correspond to the spectral library; note that Stolyarov teaches two or more different 2D materials); “(c) generating a code based on the presence, and optionally the quantities, of the two or more different 2D materials” (the code is the spectral pattern of each data in the spectral library); and “(d) comparing the generated code with a known code to determine the authenticity of the material” (Abstract last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Vaskova to Stolyarov to have “(b) comparing the obtained Raman spectrum with reference data for each of the two or more different 2D materials in order to determine the presence, and optionally the quantities, of the two or more different 2D materials; (c) generating a code based on the presence, and optionally the quantities, of the two or more different 2D materials; and (d) comparing the generated code with a known code to determine the authenticity of the material” in order to verify the questionable banknotes (Abstract last sentence).
Stolyarov, when modified by Vaskova, does not explicitly teach a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50.
Komkrit, from the same field of endeavor as Stolyarov, teaches a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50 (p. 9 para 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Komkrit to Stolyarov, when modified by Vaskova, to have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50 (p. 9 para 1-2) in order to cover more surface area in the article, thus, optimizing the Raman detection.
Note that Komkrit only teaches graphene particles, however, Stolyarov teaches two or more Raman-active 2D materials.
It would be obvious to try using the teaching dimension of Komkrit to the other Raman 2D material in Stolyarov to also have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50 in order to also cover more surface area in the article, thus, optimizing the Raman detection.
Regarding claim 13, Stolyarov teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the 2D materials are independently selected from: “graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide” (para [0041]), borophene, germanene, silicene, stanene, phosphorene, bismuthene, hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN), 2D silicates, layered double hydroxides (LDH), 2D perovskites, transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs), MoCl3, black phosphorus, Cr2S3, SnO, SnSe2, Ga2S3, CoO, GaPO4, InN, FeSe, indium tin oxide (ITO), GaN, GaS, Bi2O2Se, CuS, GaSe, GaTe, Bi2Te3, Bi2Se3Bi2TeS2, MoO2, MoO3, BiOCl, V20s, talc,InO, InSe, InS3, GeS and GeSe.
Regarding claim 15, Stolyarov teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the 2D materials are independently selected from: “graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide” (para [0041]), h-BN, and TMDs.
Regarding claim 17, Stolyarov teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the 2D materials are independently selected from: “graphene, graphene oxide” (para [0041]), h-BN, MoS2, WS2 and MoSe2 (para [0041]).
Regarding claim 18, Stolyarov teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the article is selected from: metals; natural or synthetic fibres; thermoplastic and thermosetting polymers (para [0039]); ceramics; electronic circuit components; and currency; with the proviso that the article is not a metal when the Raman-detectible composition is homogeneously dispersed in the bulk of the article (para [0042]).
Regarding claim 19, Stolyarov teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the article is a natural (para [0044]; paper is made of natural fiber) or synthetic fibre.
Regarding claim 20, Stolyarov teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the Raman-detectible composition is homogeneously dispersed in the bulk of the article (para [0132] lines 8-24; the article here can be paper).
Regarding claim 27, Stolyarov teaches an apparatus for verifying the authenticity of an article, the apparatus comprising: wherein each of the two or more different Raman-active 2D materials are in the form of particles or flakes (para [0041]; the compositions can be both particles and flakes) within the article (para [0037]), “(a) a Raman spectrometer, the spectrometer comprising a laser light source and a detector;” (fig. 1 shows the Raman spectrum, this is means Stolyarov teaches Raman spectrometer comprising a laser light source and a detector).
Stolyarov does not teach (b) an electronic data store for storing known Raman reference data, which have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50; (c) an electronic data processor for comparing the Raman spectrum obtained by the spectrometer and the Raman spectra in the electronic data store; and (d) an output device for indicating to the user either: (i) a code derived from the obtained Raman spectrum; or (ii) an indication of the authenticity of the article.
Vaskova, from the same field of endeavor as Stolyarov, teaches (b) an electronic data store for storing known Raman reference data (spectral data are stored in the spectral library, Abstract last sentence), “(c) an electronic data processor for comparing the Raman spectrum obtained by the spectrometer and the Raman spectra in the electronic data store” (the verification requires a processor for comparing the Raman spectrum obtained by the spectrometer and the Raman spectra in the electronic data store; Abstract last sentence); and “(d) an output device for indicating to the user either” (Abstract last sentence; the verification requires a): “(i) a code derived from the obtained Raman spectrum; or (ii) an indication of the authenticity of the article” (Abstract last sentence; the codes are the data in the spectral library).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Vaskova to Stolyarov to have (b) an electronic data store for storing known Raman reference data; (c) an electronic data processor for comparing the Raman spectrum obtained by the spectrometer and the Raman spectra in the electronic data store; and (d) an output device for indicating to the user either: (i) a code derived from the obtained Raman spectrum; or (ii) an indication of the authenticity of the article in order to verify the questionable banknotes (Abstract last sentence).
Stolyarov, when modified by Vaskova, does not explicitly teach which have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50.
Komkrit, from the same field of endeavor as Stolyarov, teaches which have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50 (p. 9 para 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Komkrit to Stolyarov, when modified by Vaskova, to have which have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50 in order to cover more surface area in the article, thus, optimizing the Raman detection.
Note that Komkrit only teaches graphene particles, however, Stolyarov teaches two or more Raman-active 2D materials.
It would be obvious to try using the teaching dimension of Komkrit to the other Raman 2D material to which have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50 in Stolyarov in order to also cover more surface area in the article, thus, optimizing the Raman detection.
Regarding claim 28, Stolyarov does not teach the method of claim 6, which further comprises subjecting the article to Raman spectroscopy thereby obtaining a Raman spectrum or a code derivable from the Raman spectrum, and checking the Raman spectrum or code against the record to determine authenticity of the article.
Vaskova, from the same field of endeavor as Stolyarov, teaches the method of claim 6, which further comprises subjecting the article to Raman spectroscopy (this is shown in figs. 4-6) thereby obtaining a Raman spectrum (this is shown in figs. 4-6) or a code derivable from the Raman spectrum, and checking the Raman spectrum or code against the record to determine authenticity of the article (Abstract last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Vaskova to Stolyarov to have the method of claim 6, which further comprises subjecting the article to Raman spectroscopy thereby obtaining a Raman spectrum or a code derivable from the Raman spectrum, and checking the Raman spectrum or code against the record to determine authenticity of the article in order to verify the questionable banknotes (Abstract last sentence).
Regarding claim 30, Stolyarov teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the weight ratio of the amount of the first 2D material to the amount of each of the other different 2D materials in the Raman- detectible composition is from 1:10 to 10:1 (para [0013]; 50% weight of one or more graphene-like materials is within 1:10 to 10:1).
Regarding claim 32, Stolyarov does not teach the method of claim 11, wherein the 2D materials have an average length of about 50 nm to about 2000 nm. Regarding claim 33, Stolyarov does not teach the method of claim 11, wherein the 2D materials have an average width of about 20 nm to about 1000 nm.
Komkrit, from the same field of endeavor as Stolyarov, teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the 2D materials have an average length of about 50 nm to about 2000 nm (p. 9 para 1-2) and the method of claim 11, wherein the 2D materials have an average width of about 20 nm to about 1000 nm (p. 9 para 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Komkrit to Stolyarov, when modified by Vaskova, to have the method of claim 11, wherein the 2D materials have an average length of about 50 nm to about 2000 nm and the method of claim 11, wherein the 2D materials have an average width of about 20 nm to about 1000 nm in order to cover more surface area in the article, thus, optimizing the Raman detection.
Regarding claim 34, Stolyarov teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the Raman spectrum is not obtained using surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy (this is shown in fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877