Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/540,316

MACHINE READABLE SECURITY FEATURES

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 14, 2023
Examiner
SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM
Art Unit
1785
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sicpa Holding SA
OA Round
4 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
720 granted / 1007 resolved
+6.5% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1051
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
61.1%
+21.1% vs TC avg
§102
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
§112
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1007 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Note Applicant’s response filed on 09/12/2025 has been fully considered. Claim 1 is amended, claims 2-4, 15 and 16 are canceled, and claims 1, 5-14 and 17-19 are pending. Currently, claims 11-14 and 19 are withdrawn as non-elected invention.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, 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, 5-10, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demartin Maeder et al. (US 2008/0241492 A1) in view of Wissemborski et al. (US 2020/0103565 A1) and Nouzille et al. (US 2015/0132543 A1). Claims 1, 5, 7 and 17: Demartin Maeder teaches an ink for a security printing (abstract and [0022]) comprising infrared (IR) absorbing materials having a crystalline structure ([0023] and [0035]), wherein the ink further comprises a drier [0030] in an amount of 0.2% [0059], a photoinitiator [0030] in an amount of 6.4% [0066], or a water solvent [0030] in an amount of 15% [0062]. Demartin Maeder teaches the IR absorbing material has a general formula of Fe3(PO4)2 [0020]. Demartin Maeder teaches the ink further comprises a drier [0030] in an amount of 0.2% [0059]; and the ink is for intaglio printing [0022]. Demartin Maeder does not teach the (IR) absorbing material is a crystal water-free iron(II) orthophosphate. However, Wissemborski teaches infrared (IR) absorbers comprising crystal water-free iron(II) orthophosphates of the general formula Fe3(PO4)2 and have a graftonite crystal structure ([0012] and [0016]). With respect to claims 5 and 17, Wissemborski teaches the IR absorber has a particle size (d50 value) of 0.01-50µm [0038]. With respect to claim 7, Wissemborski teaches the IR absorbed is prepared by: providing a mixture containing at least 8.45 kg iron(III) oxide-hdroxide [FeO(OH) or Fe2O3 1H2O] and 7.95 kg 98% phosphonic acid [H3PO3]; spray granulation; and drying and treating at 750 ˚C temperature ([0079]-[0085]). Demartin Maeder and Wissemborski are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the IR absorbing material art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the IR absorber of Wissemborski with the invention of Demartin Maeder, and the motivation for combing would be, as Wissemborski suggested, to provide an ink having improved IR absorption and having high thermal and chemical stability [0010]. Demartin Maeder teaches cobalt octoate as a suitable example of the drier [0059] but does not teach any of the claimed driers. However, Nouzille teaches a security ink [0010] comprising polyvalent metal salt oxidative dries containing cobalt, calcium, copper, zinc, iron, zirconium, manganese, barium, strontium, lithium, vanadium or potassium as a cation; and halides, nitrates, sulphates, acetates or acetoacetonates as an anion [0073]. Demartin Maeder and Nouzille are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the security ink art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the polyvalent metal salt oxidative dries of Nouzille with the invention of Demartin Maeder, and the motivation for combining would be for accelerating oxidative drying and reducing drying time of the ink. Claim 6: Demartin Maeder teaches the IR absorbing materials in the ink is 5-70% [0046]. Claim 8: Demartin Maeder teaches the ink is to form machine readable indicia [0002]. Claim 9: Demartin Maeder teaches the machine readable indicia is a security document [0001]. Claims 10 and 18: Demartin Maeder teaches the IR absorbing ink were either printed as a stand-alone security feature, or, alternatively combined with not-IR absorbing inks of the same shade, to produce covert IR absorption patterns in addition to the visible features on the said documents ([0067] and [0060)). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 5-10, 17 and 18 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. Nouzille teaches the claimed driers in security ink. For the above reasons claims 1, 5-10, 17 and 18 stand rejected. 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. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm. 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached on 571-272-1291. 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. BS September 27, 2025 /BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 14, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 27, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
May 30, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 12, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 27, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12570076
FILM AND LAMINATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565022
Insulative Material
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558913
RECORDING MATERIAL FOR DYE SUBLIMATION PRINTING HAVING IMPROVED TRANSPORT PROPERTIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12533866
INFRARED ADAPTIVE TRANSPARENT CAMOUFLAGE FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12534636
EXTERIOR WINDOW FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+15.5%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1007 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month