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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150185156A1 (hereinafter Mirkin), and in view of US20110049239A1 (hereinafter Kukushkin).
Regarding claim 6, Mirkin teaches a method for tagging an article with a Raman-detectible composition comprising one or more different Raman-active 2D materials (para [0034] lines 1-6), the method comprising: (i) dispersing the Raman-detectible composition (fig. 1a; the nanostructures have different shapes, para [0033] lines 1-9) within the article (this is shown in fig. 1a), wherein the article is not a metal (claim 19); or (ii) applying the Raman-detectible composition to the surface of the article, optionally wherein the Raman-detectible composition also comprises a binder (claim 23); “thereby linking the article and the Raman spectrum of the Raman-detectible composition or a code derivable from the Raman spectrum” (this is shown in fig. 10, para [0017]); and recording the link between the article and the Raman spectrum or code as an indication of authenticity of the article (fig. 10, claims 26-27); wherein each of the one or more different Raman-active 2D materials are in the form of particles (para [0033] lines 1-9) or flakes which have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50 (para [0019] lines 6-8).
Mirkin does not explicitly teach three different Raman-active materials.
Kukushkin teaches three different Raman-active materials (fig. 2, para [0014-15]).
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 Kukushkin to Mirkin to have three different Raman-active materials in order to be used for storing and reading protected information for a variety of materials, substances and subjects, which require to be protected from unauthorized access and alteration (para [0009]).
Regarding claim 11, Mirkin teaches a method comprising: (a) measuring and obtaining the Raman spectrum of a material comprising a Raman detectible composition comprising one or more different Raman-active 2D materials (para [0034] lines 1-6), wherein each of the one or more different Raman-active 2D materials are in the form of particles (para [0033] lines 1-9) or flakes which have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50 (para [0019] lines 6-8); (b) comparing the obtained Raman spectrum with reference data for each of the one or more different 2D materials in order to determine the presence (figs. 4, 9, 10), and optionally the quantities, of the one or more different 2D materials (figs. 4, 9, 10); (c) generating a code based on the presence, and optionally the quantities, of the one or more different 2D materials (figs. 4, 9, 10); and (d) comparing the generated code with a known code to determine the authenticity of the material (figs. 4, 9, 10).
Mirkin does not explicitly teach three different Raman-active materials.
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 Kukushkin to Mirkin to have three different Raman-active materials in order to be used for storing and reading protected information for a variety of materials, substances and subjects, which require to be protected from unauthorized access and alteration (para [0009]).
Regarding claim 13, Mirkin teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the 2D materials are independently selected from: graphene (para [0034]), graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, 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, Mirkin teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the 2D materials are independently selected from: graphene (para [0034]), graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, h-BN, and TMDs.
Regarding claim 17, Mirkin teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the 2D materials are independently selected from: graphene (para [0034]), graphene oxide, h-BN, MoS2, WS2 and MoSe2.
Regarding claim 18, Mirkin does not teach the method according to claim 6, wherein the article is selected from: metals; natural or synthetic fibres; thermoplastic and thermosetting polymers; 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.
Kukushkin, from the same field of endeavor as Mirkin, teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the article is selected from: metals; natural or synthetic fibres (passports are made of fibers; para [0009]); 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 (the solution shown in fig. 2 is homogeneously dispersed in the bulk of the article).
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 Kukushkin to Mirkin to have the method according to claim 6, wherein the article is selected from: metals; natural or synthetic fibres; thermoplastic and thermosetting polymers; 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 in order to be used for storing and reading protected information for a variety of materials, substances and subjects, which require to be protected from unauthorized access and alteration (para [0009]).
Regarding claim 19, Mirkin teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the article is a natural or synthetic fibre (claim 19, currency note is made of fibers).
Regarding claim 27, Mirkin teaches an apparatus for verifying the authenticity of an article, the apparatus comprising: (a) a Raman spectrometer (para [0071]), the spectrometer comprising a laser light source (para [0060]) and a detector (para [0071]); (b) an electronic data store for storing known Raman reference data of one or more different Raman-active 2D materials (this is shown in fig. 4 (d)), wherein each of the one or more different Raman- active 2D materials are in the form of particles (para [0033] lines 1-9; para [0034] lines 1-6) or flakes which have a thickness of from about 1 to about 50 nm and have a length to thickness ratio of greater than about 50 (para [0019] lines 6-8); (c) an electronic data processor for comparing the Raman spectrum obtained by the spectrometer and the Raman spectra in the electronic data store (this is shown in fig. 4(d)); 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 (this is shown in fig. 4(d)).
Mirkin does not explicitly teach three different Raman-active materials.
Kukushkin teaches three different Raman-active materials (fig. 2, para [0014-15]).
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 Kukushkin to Mirkin to have three different Raman-active materials in order to be used for storing and reading protected information for a variety of materials, substances and subjects, which require to be protected from unauthorized access and alteration (para [0009]).
Regarding claim 28, Mirkin teaches 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 (this is shown in fig. 4(d)).
Regarding claim 30, Mirkin does not teach 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.
Kukushkin 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 (the different concentrations are shown fig. 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 Kukushkin to Mirkin to have 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 in order to produce the code of the Raman sample at different conncentrations.
Regarding claim 32, Mirkin teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the 2D materials have an average length of about 50 nm to about 2000 nm (para [0019] lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 34, Mirkin teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the Raman spectrum is not obtained using surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy (this is shown in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 35, Mirkin does not teach the method of claim 6, wherein the code is a multi-digit numerical code. Regarding claim 36, Mirkin does not teach the method of claim 11, wherein the code is a multi-digit numerical code.
Kukushkin teaches the method of claims 6 and 11, wherein the code is a multi-digit numerical code (figs. 2-3).
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 Kukushkin to Mirkin to have the method of claims 6 and 11, wherein the code is a multi-digit numerical code in order to be used for storing and reading protected information for a variety of materials, substances and subjects, which require to be protected from unauthorized access and alteration (para [0009]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirkin and Kukushkin as applied to claim 6, and further in view of US20160276056A1 (hereinafter Stolyarov).
Regarding claim 20, Mirkin does not teach the method according to claim 6, wherein the Raman-detectible composition is homogeneously dispersed in the bulk of the article.
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).
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 Stolyarov to Mirkin to have the method according to claim 6, wherein the Raman-detectible composition is homogeneously dispersed in the bulk of the article in order to increase or optimize the Raman signals.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirkin and Kukushkin as applied to claim 11, and further in view of GB 2564166 A (hereinafter Komkrit).
Regarding claim 33, Mirkin 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 Mirkin, teaches 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 Mirkin to have 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.
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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights