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. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim contains the term ‘the minting’. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Appropriate correction is required. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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. Claim (s) 1 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kecht in US20180320014 in view of Wikipedia in the article ‘Organic Acid’(03/10/2016 version) . Regarding Claim 1: Kecht teaches a security ink for application on value documents (See Paragraph 35). The ink of Kecht includes a resin core containing a security feature and a chemically resistant melamine-formaldehyde shell (See Paragraph 37 and 47-48). Kecht teaches that the core particles may have a size of 5 microns or less, which represents an overlapping range of particle sizes that includes nanoparticles (See Paragraph 45; nanoparticles being particles having a size less than 1 micron) . It is alternatively noted that the absorber contained within the resin core of Kecht may be a quantum dot (See Paragraph 62 and 65). Quantum dots are semiconductor nanoparticles having a nanoparticulate size as claimed. The core shell structure, whether it is considered to be the quantum dot or the polymer necessarily has the claimed ‘surface functionalizable groups’. Kecht teaches that both the core and shell polymer may have chemical binding sites (‘surface functionalizable groups’; See Paragraph 49). Kecht teaches that the surface functionalizable groups of the core polymer may be largely irrelevant as it is coated . The quantum dots necessarily have positive and negative ions that are surface functionalizable to the same extent claimed. Kecht thus obviates ‘providing an ink having a core-shell nanoparticle’ with surface functionalizable groups’. Kecht shows the use of such an ink for printing on ‘bank-note paper’ (See Paragraph 91). Bank-note paper is the cotton-based substrate used in the printing of currency (banknotes). Kecht thus obviates applying their security ink during the printing (minting) of an authentic banknote (currency). Kecht goes on to teach that the presence of the core-shell stabilized security ink can be ascertained by quantitative testing of the stability of the luminescent substance (See Paragraph 97 and 117). Kecht teaches that a proof is provided and this proof may be in terms of the response of the ink when irradiated with UV light before treatment with an acid, base or solvent . The feature is then treated with an acid, base, or solvent and a second response is recorded. The presence or absence of the security ink of Kecht is then determined based on comparing the treated sample with the proof sample. The testing procedure may be in terms of a photoluminescent substance excited by UV light and emitting another wavelength of light (See Paragraph 62-63 and Example 1). The change of the emission wavelength and the damage to the sample is then quantified to determine whether the article is authentic (or counterfeit; See comparisons between Example 1 and 3 on page 7 ; loss or reduction of emission is considered to be a change in emission wavelength as claimed ). As is set forth above, emission is based on the core-shell nanoparticles that may be present in the ink. Kecht thus teaches treating the currency sample with a solution comprising an acid and exposing the currency sample to UV light. The treatment thereof changing the emission wavelength of the core-shell nanoparticle to a qua nt i fiable degree. Kecht teaches the treatment of the security feature with acids, bases or solvents. Kecht shows the treatment with mineral acids (sulfuric acid; See Paragraph 107) , but is silent in terms of solutions containing specific organic acids (carboxylic acid s ) . However, those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to test the properties of Kecht using any acidic solution including both the mineral acids shown , as well as organic acids. The reference to Wikipedia shows various known organic acids , including carboxylic acids . Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use any of the known organic acid shown by Wikipedia to provide the authentication as is taught by Kecht . Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to test with acids having various pH and concentration to provide authentication as is shown by Kecht and would have found it obvious to use any of the common organic acids taught by Wikipedia including formic, acetic, propionic, butyric, valeric, caproic, oxalic, lactic, malic, citric, benzoic or carbonic acid to do so . Those of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the use of such a carboxylic acid to be capable of showing the same results as the mineral acids taught by Kecht in determining the authenticity of a sample having the described security feature and ultimately a method of identifying counterfeit currency as claimed . Regarding Claim 9: Kecht in view of Wikipedia teaches the testing of the inks with various known acids. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to test the inks of Kecht with the organic acids of Wikipedia as they would be expected to have the same effect in terms of determining counterfeit goods (currency). Wikipedia teaches that benzoic acid is a common organic acid. Those of ordinary skill would have expected the use of benzoic acid to be capable of showing the presence of absence of the security inks of Kecht as is discussed above . Regarding Claim 10: Kecht in view of Wikipedia teaches the testing of the inks with various known acids to determine authenticity of an item of value. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to test the inks of Kecht with the organic acids of Wikipedia as they would be expected to have the same effect in terms of determining counterfeit goods (currency). Wikipedia shows various common carboxylic acids. Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use one or more of these carboxylic acids alone or in combination to test the ink of Kecht . It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught to be useful for the same purpose (as an acid), in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06). The use of a combination of carboxylic acids would necessarily include treating the nanoparticles with a first and second carboxylic acid. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-8 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: Claim 2 sets forth that the core-shell structure is a rare earth doped core and a transition metal doped shell comprising TiO 2 . Such a structure is not taught by the prior art in the counterfeit detection method as claimed. The claims of patents 11767471 and 11357085 do not obviate the claimed method of applying such a phosphor to a value item as a security mark. It is noted that the instant claims were restricted from the claims of those patents and are not subject to obvious double patenting on this basis. US20100059984 is noted as providing anticounterfeiting through inks that change colors after the application of a chemical. It is noted that the method of ‘984 does not teach emission of these inks, although UV may be used in various security features. ‘014 is also noted above, but is silent in terms of the claimed core/shell particles having a rare earth doped core and a doped TiO 2 shell. Claims 3-8 depend on claim 2. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3585 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:30am-6:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1177 . 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. /Matthew E. Hoban/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734