DETAILED ACTION
National Stage Application
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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 29 January 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: replacing “attaching a flat element to” with --determining an area on--.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… term "production inaccuracy" within the meaning of the present invention comprises all possible fluctuations in the production or manufacturing process of physical objects and fluctuations in printing processes such that an individual feature image arises that is bound to a physical object. Moreover, within the meaning of the present invention, the term comprises unintentional and intrinsic deviations in the examined area of the physical object relative to the examined area of identical physical objects and its original digital image. These intentional and intrinsic deviations may be deviations in the surface of the product, document and/or substrate itself, deviations in a printed-on printing composition, or deviations in the print image of an identification patter printed on with a printing composition. Examples of deviations in the surface of the product, document and/or substrate include surface irregularities, differences in the fibre structure or fibre thickness, holes, protrusions, scratches, edge contours, granularities, roughness and haziness. Examples of deviations in the printedon printing composition are deviations in viscosity, surface tension, or particle size, particle agglomerations, etc. Examples of deviations in the print image of the identification pattern printed on with the printing composition are printing inaccuracies and printing defects such as different line thicknesses, line paths, line widening, edge contours, satellite drops, multiple ink drops on a flat element, no ink drops, which are attributable to individual error and incorrect settings of the printer, such as e.g. lack of a printing impulse, clogging or incorrect setting of the printing nozzles or inconsistent guiding of the substrate and/or printing head. Excluded from the term "production inaccuracies" are deviations made knowingly by the manufacturer or exhibitor on the surface of the product, document and/or substrate, in the printing composition or in the print image, such as e.g. intentional manipulations of the surface of the product, document and/or substrate, for example by adding foreign bodies or incorporating cavities, additives, such as pigments, into the printing composition or targeted flaws or incorrect colours into the print image …” on pg. 6, lines 10+) serves as a glossary for the claim term “production inaccuracy”.
The specification (e.g., see “… term "extraction of production inaccuracies" within the meaning of the present invention comprises the measuring and evaluation of deviations from the "perfect" digital original. In reality, almost all products, documents and substrates show production inaccuracies. These may not be perceptible to the unaided human eye, thus often requiring optical measuring devices such as such as e.g. a spectrometer, camera or smart devices. In cases where deviations can be measured by imaging with an optical measuring device, such as e.g. a spectrometer, camera or smart devices, the present invention refers to this as a production inaccuracy. …” on pg. 7, lines 6+) serves as a glossary for the claim term “measuring and evaluation of deviations from the perfect digital original”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There does not appear to be any disclosure of a criterion for determining an area or a characteristic of a determined area in the application as filed. Therefore there does not appear to be a written description of the newly added claim limitation “determining an area” in the application as filed. Similarly, there does not appear to be a written description of the newly added claim limitation “a determined area” in the application as filed.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above also fail(s) to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 1-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
There does not appear to be any disclosure of a criterion for determining an area or a characteristic of a determined area in the application as filed. Therefore the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, for “determining an area”. Similarly, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make “a determined area”.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above also fail(s) to comply with the enablement requirement for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the perfect digital original” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the perfect digital original” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the perfect digital original” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
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.
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 of this title, 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) 1, 12-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Di Venuto Dayer et al. (US 2012/0243797).
In regard to claim 1 in so far as understood, Di Venuto Dayer et al. disclose a method for unique marking of products, comprising:
(a) determining an area on to at least one surface of the product (e.g., “… Labels are taken as an example …” in paragraph 137 or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a product area can be determined as desirable by an user);
(b) irradiating the determined area with photons (e.g., “… non-coherent light illumination … acquisition phase comprising the following steps, for each object to be later identified: digitally acquiring a two-dimensional image of the object according to parameter settings through sampling on a uniformly spaced orthogonal grid of at least one color component …” in paragraphs 24-26);
(c) extraction of production inaccuracies from the determined area in the spectral range of up to 3000 nm (e.g., “… first level is named "unique fingerprint" in this document. With this technique it is possible to identify, to track uniquely and to detect counterfeiting for some valuable item or document. This technology is based on the unique micro structure of the surface of each item … electromagnetic signal (spectrum of light emitted by an object), etc … randonmess can be observed in the contours of a printed shape or inside a tint area or at locations where several colors are applied. For instance FIG. 13 shows the contours of text printed in rotogravure technology and how they vary between two successive prints … print randonmess depends on several parameters, including the location of the cells engraved on the cylinder, the viscosity of the ink, the printing speed and the micro structure of the carton, the ink filling of the cylinder cells, etc. on one hand and the ink absorption on the paper on the other hand. All these parameters have an influence on the randomization of the shape contours or tint area. It is this randomness that can be used to identify individual products but also production batches, individual cylinder used for production or the printing works …” in paragraphs 37, 40, 126, and 127), which comprises measuring and evaluation of deviations (e.g., “… image of the surface is acquired by means of a digital imaging device, which can be a digital scanner, a digital camera, a mobile phone with integrated camera (possibly using a special macroscopic lens), a portable microscope, a microscope, a specially designed device, etc. … randomization of the shape contours or tint area. It is this randomness that can be used to identify individual products …” in paragraphs 100 and 127) from the perfect digital original (e.g., “… location of the dots is determined by a digital image that is used to create the offset, flexo or rotogravure cylinder … it should be noted that the digital image of the dots or holes given to the printer can also be used as reference image …” in paragraph 140); and
(d) storage of the production inaccuracies extracted from the determined area (e.g., “… storing in a reference database the downsampled template version and the flattened template …” in paragraph 29).
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 1, Di Venuto Dayer et al. also disclose that the production inaccuracies comprise deviations in the at least one surface of the product itself, deviations in a printed-on printing composition and deviations in print image of an identification pattern printed on with the printing composition (e.g., see “… randomness can be observed in the contours of a printed shape or inside a tint area or at locations where several colors are applied. For instance FIG. 13 shows the contours of text printed in rotogravure technology and how they vary between two successive prints … print randomness depends on several parameters, including the location of the cells engraved on the cylinder, the viscosity of the ink, the printing speed and the micro structure of the carton, the ink filling of the cylinder cells, etc. on one hand and the ink absorption on the paper on the other hand. All these parameters have an influence on the randomization of the shape contours or tint area. It is this randomness that can be used to identify individual products but also production batches, individual cylinder used for production or the printing works …” in
PNG
media_image1.png
704
1579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and paragraphs 126 and 127).
In regard to claim 13, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 1 above. Di Venuto Dayer et al. disclose a method for identifying products that were marked with the method for unique marking, wherein the method comprises:
(a) irradiating the determined area with photons (e.g., “… identification phase comprising the following steps, for the object to be identified: digitally acquiring a two-dimensional snapshot image according to the same parameters as the template image …” in paragraphs 30 and 31);
(b) extraction of production inaccuracies from the determined area in the range of up to 3000 nm (e.g., “… applying to the snapshot image the same flattening function as the one applied to the template image in order to produce a flattened snapshot image, generating at least one downsampled version of the flattened snapshot image …” in paragraphs 32 and 33), which comprises measuring and evaluation of deviations (e.g., “… image of the surface is acquired by means of a digital imaging device, which can be a digital scanner, a digital camera, a mobile phone with integrated camera (possibly using a special macroscopic lens), a portable microscope, a microscope, a specially designed device, etc. … randomization of the shape contours or tint area. It is this randomness that can be used to identify individual products …” in paragraphs 100 and 127) from the perfect digital original (e.g., “… location of the dots is determined by a digital image that is used to create the offset, flexo or rotogravure cylinder … it should be noted that the digital image of the dots or holes given to the printer can also be used as reference image …” in paragraph 140); and
(c) correlating of the extracted production inaccuracies with the stored production inaccuracies (e.g., “… cross-correlating the flattened snapshot image with the flattened template stored in the reference database, and thus identifying the object …” in paragraph 25).
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 13, Di Venuto Dayer et al. also disclose that the determined area is irradiated for excitation with blue or white light (e.g., “… indifferently use the word of mobile phone, mobile device, hand-held device or smartphone) … mobile device features a flash … user lay the mobile device onto the product under investigation. The application running on the device detects this and memorized the relative position in space. The user then pulls the phone back in order to have the snapshot image taken … authentication using a mobile phone … real-time (i.e. several images per second, typically capturing the frames from the video buffer of the device) analysis of the taken images and alert the operator only when a positive match has been found …” in paragraphs 279 and 280).
In regard to claim 15 which is dependent on claim 13, Di Venuto Dayer et al. also disclose that an electronic smart device is used for irradiation, wherein the smart device comprises a smartphone, a tablet, a spectrometer, or an industrial camera (e.g., “… indifferently use the word of mobile phone, mobile device, hand-held device or smartphone) … mobile device features a flash … user lay the mobile device onto the product under investigation. The application running on the device detects this and memorized the relative position in space. The user then pulls the phone back in order to have the snapshot image taken … authentication using a mobile phone … real-time (i.e. several images per second, typically capturing the frames from the video buffer of the device) analysis of the taken images and alert the operator only when a positive match has been found …” in paragraphs 279 and 280).
In regard to claim 16 which is dependent on claim 13, Di Venuto Dayer et al. also disclose that for extraction of the production inaccuracies and storage of the extracted production inaccuracies and/or for extraction of the production inaccuracies and correlating of the extracted production inaccuracies with the stored production inaccuracies, an electronic smart device with suitable software is used, wherein the electronic smart device comprises a smartphone or a tablet and the suitable software comprises an app (e.g., “… indifferently use the word of mobile phone, mobile device, hand-held device or smartphone) … mobile device features a flash … user lay the mobile device onto the product under investigation. The application running on the device detects this and memorized the relative position in space. The user then pulls the phone back in order to have the snapshot image taken … authentication using a mobile phone … real-time (i.e. several images per second, typically capturing the frames from the video buffer of the device) analysis of the taken images and alert the operator only when a positive match has been found …” in paragraphs 279 and 280).
In regard to claim 17 in so far as understood, Di Venuto Dayer et al. disclose a product with an optical security feature for unique marking and identification of products onto at least one area of the surface of the product, wherein the security feature comprises a determined area, wherein the determined area comprises production inaccuracies that are extracted by measuring and evaluating deviations from the perfect digital original in the range of up to 3000 nm (e.g., “… non-coherent light illumination … acquisition phase comprising the following steps, for each object to be later identified: digitally acquiring a two-dimensional image of the object according to parameter settings through sampling on a uniformly spaced orthogonal grid of at least one color component … first level is named "unique fingerprint" in this document. With this technique it is possible to identify, to track uniquely and to detect counterfeiting for some valuable item or document. This technology is based on the unique micro structure of the surface of each item … electromagnetic signal (spectrum of light emitted by an object), etc … image of the surface is acquired by means of a digital imaging device, which can be a digital scanner, a digital camera, a mobile phone with integrated camera (possibly using a special macroscopic lens), a portable microscope, a microscope, a specially designed device, etc. … randomness can be observed in the contours of a printed shape or inside a tint area or at locations where several colors are applied. For instance FIG. 13 shows the contours of text printed in rotogravure technology and how they vary between two successive prints … print randomness depends on several parameters, including the location of the cells engraved on the cylinder, the viscosity of the ink, the printing speed and the micro structure of the carton, the ink filling of the cylinder cells, etc. on one hand and the ink absorption on the paper on the other hand. All these parameters have an influence on the randomization of the shape contours or tint area. It is this randomness that can be used to identify individual products but also production batches, individual cylinder used for production or the printing works … Labels are taken as an example … location of the dots is determined by a digital image that is used to create the offset, flexo or rotogravure cylinder … it should be noted that the digital image of the dots or holes given to the printer can also be used as reference image …” in in paragraphs 24-26, 37, 40, 100, 126, 127, 137, and 140 or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach a substantially flat label to a desired flat surface).
In regard to claim 19, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 17 above. Di Venuto Dayer et al. disclose a serialisation and/or track and trace system, comprising the optical security feature (e.g., “… first level is named "unique fingerprint" in this document. With this technique it is possible to identify, to track uniquely and to detect counterfeiting for some valuable item or document. This technology is based on the unique micro structure of the surface of each item … electromagnetic signal (spectrum of light emitted by an object), etc … randomness can be observed in the contours of a printed shape or inside a tint area or at locations where several colors are applied. For instance FIG. 13 shows the contours of text printed in rotogravure technology and how they vary between two successive prints … print randomness depends on several parameters, including the location of the cells engraved on the cylinder, the viscosity of the ink, the printing speed and the micro structure of the carton, the ink filling of the cylinder cells, etc. on one hand and the ink absorption on the paper on the other hand. All these parameters have an influence on the randomization of the shape contours or tint area. It is this randomness that can be used to identify individual products but also production batches, individual cylinder used for production or the printing works …” in paragraphs 37, 40, 126, and 127).
Claim(s) 2 and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Venuto Dayer et al. (US 2012/0243797) in view of Cummings et al. (US 6,869,015).
In regard to claims 2 and 5-11 which are dependent on claim 1, Di Venuto Dayer et al. also disclose that the determined area comprises materials which emit radiation under photon excitation in the range of up to 3000 nm, wherein the materials are comprised in a printing composition and the printing composition is printed onto at least one surface of the product, wherein the printing composition is printed in the form of an identification pattern onto at least one surface of the product, wherein the identification pattern is unique for each individual product, wherein the identification pattern comprises a unique code and the method serves for unique and secure marking and identification of products, wherein the identification pattern is one-dimensional, two-dimensional or three-dimensional, wherein the identification pattern comprises one or more patterns, wherein the one or more patterns comprise flat elements, stripes, lines, geometric figures, alphanumeric characters, characters or combinations thereof, wherein the geometric figures comprise circles, triangles, rectangles, or polygons, and wherein the determined area overlaps with the identification pattern in the range of 10% to 100% (e.g., “… use any sufficiently random structure to uniquely identify a product. In particular it is possible to use the microstructure of a graphical design (in particular the barcode, text, logo, artistic designs, lines, etc) printed on a product as a random identifying structure (use of barcode has also been described for counterfeit detection in U.S. Pat. No. 6,869,015, using a system based on particles mixed with the barcode) or to use the microstructure of the underlying material …” in paragraph 123). The method of Di Venuto Dayer et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… graphical design (in particular the barcode, text, logo, artistic designs, lines, etc) printed …” such as printing composition comprising photoluminescent materials. However, “printed” “barcode” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… inks may represent any of the broad spectrum of commercial and proprietary inks, as well as new formulations intended to augment the barcodes utility. Special aspects of the inks, i.e. water solubility, low melting point, fluorescence, etc., may be used to broaden the applicability of the barcode scheme …” in the last complete column 16 paragraph of “… U.S. Pat. No. 6,869,015 …”). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional printed barcode (e.g., comprising details such as “commercial and proprietary inks”, in order for “fluorescence, etc., may be used to broaden the applicability of the barcode scheme”) for the unspecified printed barcode of Di Venuto Dayer et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional printed barcode (e.g., comprising details such as the determined area comprises photoluminescent materials comprised in the printing composition) as the unspecified printed barcode in the method of Di Venuto Dayer et al.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Venuto Dayer et al. in view of Cummings et al. as applied to claim(s) 2 above, and further in view of Dutta (US 2003/0047816).
In regard to claims 3 and 4 which are dependent on claim 2, the method of Di Venuto Dayer et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… graphical design (in particular the barcode, text, logo, artistic designs, lines, etc) printed …” such as printing composition comprising semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals selected from the group of the perovskites, I-VI semiconductors, II-VI semiconductors, III-V semiconductors, IV-VI semiconductors, I-III-VI semiconductors, carbon dots, and mixtures thereof. However, “printed” “barcode” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Numerous patents and publication have been issued on the fabrication of semiconductor nanoparticles (also called "quantum dots" or "nanocrystals") and their applications in the last few years. These semiconductor nanoparticles are used as a lasing medium in a laser, as fluorescent tags in biological testing methods and as electronic devices … nanoparticles may comprise any material that can form nanoparticles, such as a II-VI, IV-VI, or a III-V semiconductor material … by placing the nanoparticles into a ink, once the ink dries and the liquid base evaporates, an image is formed from a layer of nanoparticles … nanoparticle code or tag may be added to an item which must be authenticated, such as currency, a credit card, an identification card or a valuable object …” in paragraphs 3, 30, 61, and 88 of Dutta). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional printed barcode (e.g., comprising details such as “II-VI, IV-VI, or a III-V” “quantum dots” “ink”, in order for “fluorescence, etc., may be used to broaden the applicability of the barcode scheme”) for the unspecified printed barcode of Di Venuto Dayer et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional printed barcode (e.g., comprising details such as the photoluminescent materials comprise semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals, wherein the semiconducting inorganic nanocrystals are selected from the group of the perovskites, I-VI semiconductors, II-VI semiconductors, III-V semiconductors, IV-VI semiconductors, I-III-VI semiconductors, carbon dots and mixtures thereof) as the unspecified printed barcode in the method of Di Venuto Dayer et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The specification (e.g., see “… term "extraction of production inaccuracies" within the meaning of the present invention comprises the measuring and evaluation of deviations from the "perfect" digital original. In reality, almost all products, documents and substrates show production inaccuracies. These may not be perceptible to the unaided human eye, thus often requiring optical measuring devices such as such as e.g. a spectrometer, camera or smart devices. In cases where deviations can be measured by imaging with an optical measuring device, such as e.g. a spectrometer, camera or smart devices, the present invention refers to this as a production inaccuracy. …” on pg. 7, lines 6+) serves as a glossary for the claim term “measuring and evaluation of deviations from the perfect digital original”. It is important to recognize that the specification expressly teach that the scope of production inaccuracy as where deviations can be measured by imaging with an optical measuring device. Therefore in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “claimed extraction of production inaccuracies is a much more robust method of identification, which is sensitive to the resolution and other parameters of the surrounding in which the images were acquired” and “claimed invention does not require the whole template image and its flattened and downsampled template image”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0150690 teaches optical product authentication.
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 Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884