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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 7 and 17 remain objected for the reasons set forth within the previously issued Office Action.
More specifically, with respect to claims 7 and 17, the provision of an additional set of shapes upon a printed document is well known, but providing such a third set of geometric shapes upon Mehta’s document arranged in association with the pre-existing indicia printed within figs. 3-4 would be likely to interfere with the ability of said pre-existing indicia to successfully form clearly decipherable “VOID” indicia upon being tampered with via a chemical washing operation.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0281139 to Mehta et al. (“Mehta”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0157378 to Cole et al. (“Cole”).
Regarding claim 1, Mehta discloses a security document (10, as shown in figs. 1-2) comprising: i) a document substrate (12, as shown in figs. 1-2 and discussed at para. 47); ii) a pattern of repeated (figs. 3-4) geometric shapes (e.g. small circles and squares, as shown in figs. 3-4) printed on (para. 21 and 48) the document substrate (12) comprising a first set (e.g. instances of aforementioned small circles and squares outside of the “VOID” message, as shown in comparing figs. 3-4) of the geometric shapes (aforementioned small circles and squares) printed using a reactive ink (e.g. solvent sensitive ink discussed at para. 21 and 48) comprising a first ink that is erasable by a solvent (para. 21 and 48) and a second set (e.g. instances of aforementioned small circles and squares within the “VOID” message, as shown in comparing figs. 3-4) of the geometric shapes (aforementioned small circles and squares) printed using a non-reactive ink (e.g. solvent resistant ink discussed at para. 21 and 48) comprising a second ink that is not erasable by the solvent (para. 21 and 48), wherein the geometric shapes (aforementioned small circles and squares) fit together without substantial overlaps (figs. 3-4) and a visual appearance (figs. 3-4) of the reactive ink (aforementioned solvent sensitive ink, printed outside of the “VOID” message) is substantially the same as (figs. 3-4) a visual appearance (figs. 3-4) of the non-reactive ink (aforementioned solvent resistant ink, printed within the “VOID” message); iii) the first set of geometric shapes (aforementioned instances of small circles and squares outside of the “VOID” message) or the second set of geometric shapes (aforementioned instances of small circles and squares within the “VOID” message) are arranged together to form one or more hidden symbols, pantographs or messages (e.g. “VOID” message shown in fig. 4 and discussed at para. 16 and 48); and iv) the reactive ink (aforementioned solvent sensitive ink, printed outside of the “VOID” message) is designed to react to a chemical tampering or washing (para. 21 and 48), and the non- reactive ink (aforementioned solvent resistant ink, printed within the “VOID” message) is designed to not react to the chemical tampering or washing (para. 21 and 48).
Mehta does not disclose each of the first set (aforementioned instances of aforementioned small circles and squares outside of the “VOID” message, as shown in comparing figs. 3-4) and the second set of geometric shapes (aforementioned instances of aforementioned small circles and squares within the “VOID” message, as shown in comparing figs. 3-4) not including any partial geometric shapes.
Cole teaches the concept of providing a set of geometric shapes (e.g. square pixels within pattern 1300, as shown in fig. 13 and discussed at para. 57), not including any partial geometric shapes (fig. 13; note the presence of only full white or black squares therein).
Additionally, note that such a designation of shaping would be an obvious matter of design choice. In the instant case, the provision of a set of geometric shapes absent any partial shapes will yield a desired aesthetic appearance.
Given that Mehta and Cole both concern the use of individual small shapes (compare Mehta figs. 3-4 and Cole fig. 13) to form larger overall messages (compare Mehta figs. 3-4 and Cole fig. 12), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the aforementioned Mehta small circles and squares using only complete shapes, absent any partial geometric shapes, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant desired aesthetic appearance.
Regarding claim 2, Mehta in view of Cole discloses the security document of claim 1, wherein the reactive ink (aforementioned Mehta solvent sensitive ink, printed outside of the “VOID” message) and the non-reactive ink (aforementioned Mehta solvent resistant ink, printed within the “VOID” message) are designed to print side-by-side (compare Mehta figs. 3-4) using substantially the same hues (compare Mehta figs. 3-4) and differing solvent profiles (Mehta para. 21 and 48).
Regarding claim 4, Mehta in view of Cole discloses the security document of claim 1, wherein the pattern of repeated geometric shapes (aforementioned Mehta small circles and squares) creates a substantially uniform background (Mehta figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 5, Mehta in view of Cole discloses the security document of claim 1, wherein the geometric shapes (aforementioned Mehta small circles and squares) comprise circles (Mehta figs. 3-4), triangles, diamonds, trapezoids, rectangles, hexagons, squares (Mehta figs. 3-4), rhombus, polygons or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 6, Mehta in view of Cole discloses the security document of claim 1, wherein the pattern of repeated geometric shapes (aforementioned Mehta small circles and squares) further comprises a pattern of different colors (Mehta para. 20, 24 and 29), tints (Mehta para. 34), tones or shades.
Regarding claim 8, Mehta in view of Cole discloses the security document of claim 1, further comprising gaps or partial gaps between (Mehta figs. 3-4) the geometric shapes (aforementioned Mehta small circles and squares).
Regarding claim 9, Mehta in view of Cole discloses the security document of claim 1, wherein the one or more hidden symbols, pantographs or messages (aforementioned “VOID” message shown in Mehta fig. 4) remain undetectable when the first set of geometric shapes (aforementioned instances of Mehta small circles and squares outside of the “VOID” message) and the second set of geometric shapes (aforementioned instances of Mehta small circles and squares within the “VOID” message) are printed out of register (Mehta fig. 3; note that individualized instances of constituent circles and squares themselves are not printed in register).
Regarding claim 10, Mehta in view of Cole discloses the security document of claim 1, wherein: i) the reactive ink (aforementioned Mehta solvent sensitive ink, printed outside of the “VOID” message) is substantially washed away by the chemical tampering or washing (Mehta para. 21 and 48); and ii) the non-reactive ink (aforementioned Mehta solvent resistant ink, printed within the “VOID” message) is not substantially washed away by the chemical tampering or washing (Mehta para. 21 and 48).
Regarding claim 11, Mehta anticipates a method (para. 3) for printing (para. 21 and 48) a security document (10, as shown in figs. 1-2), the method (para. 3) comprising: i) providing a document substrate (12, as shown in figs. 1-2 and discussed at para. 47); ii) selecting a pattern of repeated (figs. 3-4) geometric shapes (e.g. small circles and squares, as shown in figs. 3-4), wherein the geometric shapes (aforementioned small circles and squares) fit together without substantial overlaps (figs. 3-4); iii) selecting a first set (e.g. instances of aforementioned small circles and squares outside of the “VOID” message, as shown in comparing figs. 3-4) of geometric shapes (aforementioned small circles and squares) or a second set (e.g. instances of aforementioned small circles and squares within the “VOID” message, as shown in comparing figs. 3-4) of geometric shapes (aforementioned small circles and squares) that together form one or more hidden symbols, pantographs or messages (e.g. “VOID” message shown in fig. 4 and discussed at para. 16 and 48); iv) printing (para. 21 and 48) the first set of geometric shapes (aforementioned instances of small circles and squares outside of the “VOID” message) on the document substrate (12) using a reactive ink (e.g. solvent sensitive ink discussed at para. 21 and 48) comprising a first ink that is erasable by a solvent (para. 21 and 48); v) printing the second set of geometric shapes (aforementioned instances of small circles and squares within the “VOID” message) on the document substrate (12) using a non-reactive ink (e.g. solvent resistant ink discussed at para. 21 and 48) comprising a second ink that is not erasable by the solvent (para. 21 and 48), wherein a visual appearance (figs. 3-4) of the reactive ink (aforementioned solvent sensitive ink, printed outside of the “VOID” message) is substantially the same as (figs. 3-4) a visual appearance (figs. 3-4) of the non-reactive ink (aforementioned solvent resistant ink, printed within the “VOID” message); and vi) wherein the reactive ink (aforementioned solvent sensitive ink, printed outside of the “VOID” message) is designed to react to a chemical tampering or washing (para. 21 and 48), and the non-reactive ink (aforementioned solvent resistant ink, printed within the “VOID” message) is designed to not react to the chemical tampering or washing (para. 21 and 48).
Mehta does not disclose each of the first set (aforementioned instances of aforementioned small circles and squares outside of the “VOID” message, as shown in comparing figs. 3-4) and the second set of geometric shapes (aforementioned instances of aforementioned small circles and squares within the “VOID” message, as shown in comparing figs. 3-4) not including any partial geometric shapes.
Cole teaches the concept of providing a set of geometric shapes (e.g. square pixels within pattern 1300, as shown in fig. 13 and discussed at para. 57), not including any partial geometric shapes (fig. 13; note the presence of only full white or black squares therein).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra, it would have been obvious to form the aforementioned Mehta small circles and squares using only complete shapes, absent any partial geometric shapes.
Regarding claim 12, Mehta in view of Cole discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the reactive ink (aforementioned Mehta solvent sensitive ink, printed outside of the “VOID” message) and the non- reactive ink (aforementioned Mehta solvent resistant ink, printed within the “VOID” message) are designed to print side-by-side (compare Mehta figs. 3-4) using substantially equal hues (compare Mehta figs. 3-4) and differing solvent profiles (Mehta para. 21 and 48).
Regarding claim 14, Mehta in view of Cole discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the pattern of repeated geometric shapes (aforementioned Mehta small circles and squares) creates a uniform background (Mehta figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 15, Mehta in view of Cole discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the geometric shapes (aforementioned Mehta small circles and squares) comprise circles (Mehta figs. 3-4), triangles, diamonds, trapezoids, rectangles, hexagons, squares (Mehta figs. 3-4), rhombus, polygons or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 16, Mehta in view of Cole discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the pattern of repeated geometric shapes (aforementioned Mehta small circles and squares) further comprises a pattern of different colors (Mehta para. 20, 24 and 29), tints (Mehta para. 34), tones or shades.
Regarding claim 18, Mehta in view of Cole discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising gaps or partial gaps between (Mehta figs. 3-4) the geometric shapes (aforementioned Mehta small circles and squares).
Regarding claim 19, Mehta in view of Cole discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the one or more hidden symbols, pantographs or messages (aforementioned “VOID” message shown in Mehta fig. 4) remain undetectable when the first set of geometric shapes (aforementioned instances of Mehta small circles and squares outside of the “VOID” message) and the second set of geometric shapes (aforementioned instances of Mehta small circles and squares within the “VOID” message) are printed out of register (Mehta fig. 3; note that individualized instances of constituent circles and squares themselves are not printed in register).
Regarding claim 20, Mehta in view of Cole discloses the method of claim 11, wherein: i) the reactive ink (aforementioned Mehta solvent sensitive ink, printed outside of the “VOID” message) is substantially washed away by the chemical tampering or washing (Mehta para. 21 and 48); and ii) the non-reactive ink (aforementioned Mehta solvent resistant ink, printed within the “VOID” message) is not substantially washed away by the chemical tampering or washing (Mehta para. 21 and 48).
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s claim amendments, a further search of the pertinent body of prior art has been executed. Within said search, the aforementioned Cole reference was identified. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a combination of references different from that which was applied within the previously issued Office Action. As such, Applicant is encouraged to see the treatment of claims set forth supra.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN V LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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 J. 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.
/JUSTIN V LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637