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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's preliminary amendment filed on 12/19/2023 has been entered.
Claims 1-15 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 15 being independent.
Claim Interpretation
The claims are directed towards modifying a lenticular structure [e.g., a plastic card/passport having a security image formed thereon], via laser irradiation, such that an image is formed in the structure, the laser being directed through the lenticular structure.
Claim 15:
“inspecting unit” is used by the claim to indicate conventional structure known in the art [i.e. movable visual inspection equipment, e.g., cameras, CCD sensors, etc.; p. 15, lines 1-2]
“computing unit” is used by the claim to indicate conventional structure known in the art [i.e., a controller, memory, software, e.g., a computer; p. 5, lines 5-10]
“customizing unit” is used by the claim to indicate conventional structure known in the art [i.e., movable laser devices, e.g., for laser marking/engraving plastic cards/passports; fig. 6: laser device 60 generating laser radiation]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 recite “the sub-pixel arrangement”, which lacks sufficient antecedent basis, rendering the claims indefinite. These recitations will be interpreted as “the [[sub-pixel]] arrangement” so as to refer to “an arrangement of sub-pixels” in claim 1 and “an arrangement of a plurality of subpixels” in claim 15, lines 3-4, respectively.
Claim 1 recites “the viewing direction” in a1), which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which direction, among the M different viewing directions, is required by a1). The claim will be interpreted as reciting “the viewing direction” in a1)
Claim 4 recites “wherein the M images represent: various views of the same static object, these various views respectively being viewable in space in the adopted viewing directions through the lenticular array so as to produce a 3D effect; or various views of the same moving object, the various views being viewable in the adopted viewing directions through the lenticular array so as to produce a 3D animation” which renders the claim indefinite: “object” lacks sufficient antecedent basis; “adopted viewing directions” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Examiner notes that since claim 1 already requires forming a 3D image, and different viewing directions with a lenticular structure, and since the claims are generally directed towards the image formed in the lenticular structure, merely serving as support for printed matter [See MPEP 2111.05(I.)(B.)], no patentable weight is being given to the requirement of producing a 3D effect/animation.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the sub-pixels are configured so that their respective colors, among said at least two different colors, are periodically distributed in the sub-pixel arrangement”, which renders the claim indefinite because “respective colors” lacks sufficient antecedent basis, and will be interpreted as referring to the detected color in step a2); and similar to claim 4 above, no patentable weight is being given to the requirement of producing an image [e.g., either prepared, as a default blank card/passport, or as a modified image on a user’s existing card/passport] with periodically distributed colored sub-pixels.
Claim 8 recites “the sub-pixel arrangement being positioned approximately in the focal plane of the lenses of the lenticular array” which renders the claim indefinite because “approximately” is a relative term [See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III. Approximations)]. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “…positioned [[approximately]] in the focal plane…” .
Claim 9 recites “each of the M viewing directions (DR)” which renders the claim indefinite because the limitation lacks sufficient antecedent basis. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “each of the M viewing directions [[(DR)]]”.
Claim 10 recites “the customizing system” which renders the claim indefinite because the limitation lacks sufficient antecedent basis. The claim will be interpreted as referring to the customizing system of claim 15.
Claims 2-14 are also rejected due to dependence on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustinus (US 20230252669 A1, claiming priority to EP 22155892.7, filed 2/9/2022) in view of Whiteman (WO 2019077317 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Augustinus discloses:
A method for forming a 3D image [dealing with spatial inaccuracy during a laser engraving treatment of a card/passport; paras. 0003-5: “On the other hand, many objects and especially plastic cards are subject to varying conditions and tend to develop deformations and other spatial inconsistencies, which are very difficult to control or predict quantitatively. For example, treatment steps involving heat may lead to changing proportions and length scales on a plastic card, both globally over the whole card and locally in specific regions of the card… One way of dealing with said uncertainties is to include a calibration step before treating the object. For example, a calibration can be carried out when a plastic card is provided to a printer or a laser engraving unit. Thus, the treatment can be adjusted depending on the card's specific properties.”; para. 0016: “For example, the flat piece may be an ID card or a passport datapage. Such flat pieces have different security features, which may include incorporating different structures on the surface and internally.”], using a lenticular structure [i.e., a conventional lenticular array as a layer on the card; paras. 0014-0018: “Also, a lenticular array may be provided and the references position may be positioned in such an area.”; para. 0094: “The card 12 may be a plain plastic card, for example, made of polycarbonate PC. The card 12 may have a window, i.e., a transparent area, or a structured area, e.g., with a lenticular structure or a tactile feature on the surface.”] comprising:
a carrier layer on which is formed an arrangement of sub-pixels of at least two different colors, each sub-pixel having a single color among said at least two different colors [Augustinus describes the conventional security element “fiducial”, or reference image, and a subpixel pattern of at least two colors, e.g., corresponding to a color of a portion that is irradiated and a portion that is not irradiated, as well as a conventional color structure; para. 0007: “In known methods, the position of fiducials can be measured using a subpixel pattern match with a local reference image as a model. Typically, this reference image is a real or a digitally created image very similar to the fiducial pattern to be located.”; para. 0017: “Also, the flat piece may have a pre-applied, printed color structure. The second reference pattern may be included in such a color structure of the flat piece.”]; and
a lenticular array comprising convergent lenses placed facing the sub-pixel arrangement [i.e., the lenticular array provided on the card; paras. 0014-0018: “…Also, a lenticular array may be provided and the references position may be positioned in such an area.”];
the method comprising the following steps:
a) performing visual inspection of the lenticular structure [detecting a reference pattern/fiducial on the card; para. 0006: “In many cases, reference patterns or so-called fiducials are provided on the object and allow determining the object's condition, in particular its surface geometry. To this end, the reference patterns are detected and their localization is determined.”], by means of an image-capturing apparatus [e.g., a camera; para. 0023: “The image data can be acquired by a method and/or device as known in the art. For example, a camera can be used. The acquisition can be done such that the image data is acquired in a detection area on a surface of an object; in particular, the reference position is to be determined within the detection area or on this surface, respectively.”], said visual inspection comprising the following steps for each among M different viewing directions relative to the lenticular array, M being an integer at least equal to 2 [Augustinus discloses the known feature of lenticular structures, wherein the structure predictably presents a different image depending on the angle of viewing relative to the lenses of the lenticular array, and thus discloses obtaining image data for the M different viewing directions; para. 0018: “Also, the flat piece may have one or more layers. For example, an angle-selective top layer may be provided on the card in the form of an embossed lenticular screen.”]:
a1) positioning the image-capturing apparatus in the viewing direction [e.g., positioning the camera/photosensitive device such that, e.g., the first and second reference patterns/fiducials and their corresponding positions are detected/determined; paras. 0011-13];
a2) detecting sub-pixels viewable through the lenses in said viewing direction [i.e., image data of the card is collected by the camera, through the lenticular structure; para. 0026: “In an embodiment, the image data is acquired using a color- or wavelength-selective photosensitive device. For example, a camera or other photosensitive device may be equipped with a filter. Thus, a reference pattern can be detected that is formed by a light signal that is easily detected within a certain wavelength range, but which is not easily visible under less specific lighting or detection conditions.”];
b) determining, based on the color of the sub-pixels detected in a2) for each viewing direction, [the image data of the card surface that is acquired by the camera may be in grayscale format; para. 0031], respectively; and
c) customizing the sub-pixel arrangement [i.e., after calibrating using the reference positions, laser engraving may be done to customize the card; para. 0074], during which
However, while Augustinus describes improving accuracy of a customizing step (wherein the surface of the card is detectable and engravable, as evidenced by Augustinus), in view of the functional relationship found between the grayscale levels of portions of the card surface, the laser device/camera, and the lenticular structure thereon, as it pertains to the overall effect, i.e., the 2D surface of the card, has an image laser engraved thereon, and through the lenticular structure, the 2D image of the card presents different portions of this 2D image depending on a given viewing angle, the laser engraving being performed through the lenticular structure [See MPEP 2111.05(I.)(B.)], Augustinus does not describe the details of the engraving process described by the claim, specifically, Augustinus does not explicitly disclose:
generating the grayscale levels that are to be engraved in the card, such that a “3D” image is eventually formed on the card by focus of laser radiation through the lenticular array, as to revealing, by way of the sub-pixel arrangement combined with the grayscale levels, the M images viewable through the lenticular array in the M viewing directions, respectively, said M images collectively forming the 3D image.
Whiteman, in the same field of endeavor [p. 1: “This invention relates to security devices, methods for their manufacture, and security articles and security documents to which the security devices may be incorporated. Security devices are used for example on documents of value such as banknotes, cheques, passports, identity cards, certificates of authenticity, fiscal stamps and other secure documents, in order to confirm their authenticity.”], teaches that the image formed under a lenticular structure may interlace at least 2 images in the singular 2D image on the card, such that 3D effects are generated [p. 21: “For example, in a "two channel" lenticular switch device which displays only two images (one across a first range of viewing angles and the other across the remaining viewing angles), where the lenses are of 30 micron width, each image section must have a width of 15 microns or less. More complicated lenticular effects such as animation, motion or 3D effects usually require more than two interlaced images and hence each section needs to be even finer in order to fit all of the image sections into the optical footprint of each lens. For instance, in a "six channel" device with six interlaced images, where the lenses are of 30 micron width, each image section must have a width of 5 microns or less.”].
Therefore, since Augustinus discloses the visual inspection step a) [i.e., calibration before engraving; para. 0074], and Whiteman teaches laser modifying the card through the lenticular structure is at least known and predictable [Whiteman, pp. 4-5: “Preferably, the portion of the laser marking in the second region of the transparent polymer layer is internal to the polymer substrate. That is, it is wholly contained within the substrate and does not extend to an external surface thereof. More preferably, this laser marking is also internal to a single (monolithic) one of the polymer layers, if the substrate is a multi-layered structure. That is, the marking does not extend to the surface of the polymer layer within which it is contained. This can be achieved through control of the focus position as discussed above.”], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Augustinus such that grayscale levels to be generated to reveal the 3D image are determined in step b) and engraved in step c) [i.e., such that all the limitations of the claim are met], since Whiteman teaches this allows improved security through complicated 3D lenticular effects such as animation and motion [p. 1: “By "security device" we mean a feature which it is not possible to reproduce accurately by taking a visible light copy, e.g. through the use of standardly available photocopying or scanning equipment.”].
Regarding claim 2, Augustinus in view of Whiteman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Augustinus as modified by Whiteman further discloses:
said method being implemented by a customizing system comprising the image-capturing apparatus and a laser device placed in the optical train of the image-capturing apparatus the laser device projecting the laser radiation in customizing step c) in each viewing direction adopted by the image-capturing apparatus in positioning step a1) [i.e., the laser engraving unit of Augustinus as the laser device, placed in the same optical path of the camera, the laser device and camera both positioned in a direction to view the different positions of the card corresponding to the interlaced images of Whiteman, so as to detect and engrave the card at those positions, to generate the 3D effect of Whiteman].
Regarding claim 3, Augustinus in view of Whiteman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Augustinus as modified by Whiteman further discloses:
wherein the grayscale levels engraved in customizing step c) intrinsically form with the sub-pixel arrangement an interlacement of image pixels of the M images viewable through the lenticular array by varying the viewing direction among the M viewing directions [Whiteman at least describes this intrinsic feature of a lenticular structure formed relative to interlaced images arranged adjacent thereto, wherein depending on viewing angle, the viewer has a selected image among the interlaced images directed thereto (e.g., a camera, laser device, or human as the viewer); p. 20: “Lenticular devices on the other hand do not rely upon magnification, synthetic or otherwise. An array of focusing elements, typically cylindrical lenses, overlies a corresponding array of image sections, or "slices", each of which depicts only a portion of an image which is to be displayed. Image slices from two or more different images are interleaved and, when viewed through the focusing elements, at each viewing angle, only selected image slices will be directed towards the viewer. In this way, different composite images can be viewed at different angles.”].
Regarding claim 4, Augustinus in view of Whiteman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Augustinus as modified by Whiteman further discloses:
wherein the M images represent:
various views of the same static object, these various views respectively being viewable in space in the adopted viewing directions through the lenticular array so as to produce a 3D effect [i.e., animation, e.g., turning]; or
various views of the same moving object, the various views being viewable in the adopted viewing directions through the lenticular array so as to produce a 3D animation [i.e., motion].
[Whiteman, p. 21: “More complicated lenticular effects such as animation, motion or 3D effects usually require more than two interlaced images and hence each section needs to be even finer in order to fit all of the image sections into the optical footprint of each lens”]
Regarding claim 5, Augustinus in view of Whiteman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Augustinus as modified by Whiteman further discloses:
wherein the sub-pixels are configured so that their respective colors, among said at least two different colors, are periodically distributed in the sub-pixel arrangement [e.g., a pre-applied color structure; Augustinus, para. 0017: “Also, the flat piece may have a pre-applied, printed color structure. The second reference pattern may be included in such a color structure of the flat piece.”].
Regarding claim 6, Augustinus in view of Whiteman discloses method as claimed in claim 1.
Augustinus as modified by Whiteman further discloses:
wherein the sub-pixel arrangement is formed by either one of the following steps:
d) printing on the carrier [i.e., the pre-applied, printed color structure; Augustinus, para. 0017]; and
e) forming a holographic metal layer [Whiteman, p. 1: “Other known security devices include holograms, watermarks, embossings, perforations and the use of colour-shifting or luminescent / fluorescent inks.”; p. 15: “For instance, the first elements of the pattern may comprise one or more inks, metals, resins, or foils applied to the first surface of the transparent polymer layer.”].
Regarding claim 7, Augustinus in view of Whiteman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Augustinus as modified by Whiteman further discloses:
wherein the lenses of the lenticular array are hemispherical or aspherical convergent lenses [Whiteman, see fig. 16(a) showing focusing elements 75 as hemispherical convergent lenses, wherein the lenses may be aspherical cylindrical lenses; p. 16: “The focussing element array can be one-dimensional (e.g. cylindrical lenses) or two-dimensional (e.g. spherical lenses).”]
Regarding claim 8, Augustinus in view of Whiteman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Augustinus as modified by Whiteman further discloses:
the sub-pixel arrangement being positioned approximately in the focal plane of the lenses of the lenticular array [i.e., Augustinus as modified by Whiteman discloses irradiating the arrangement through the lenticular array, thus the arrangement is positioned at least within a focal plane of the lenses in the lenticular structure.].
Regarding claim 9, Augustinus in view of Whiteman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Augustinus as modified by Whiteman further discloses:
wherein, during visual inspection a), the image-capturing apparatus effects an angular and/or translational relative movement to position itself, in a1), in each of the M viewing directions, so as to carry out detecting step a2) for each viewing direction [i.e., as evidenced by Whiteman, the viewing direction is predictably affected by the lenticular structure, wherein as the security device is moved relative to a viewer, e.g., the camera/laser of Augustinus, an interlaced image among the images forming the 3D image is revealed according to the position/angle of the viewer, thus rendering claim 9 an obvious modification to make to the method of Augustinus and Whiteman].
Regarding claim 10, Augustinus in view of Whiteman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Augustinus as modified by Whiteman further discloses:
wherein the method comprises storing, in a memory of the customizing system, inspection data characterizing the sub-pixels detected in a2) through the lenticular array for each of the M viewing directions,
said determining step b) being carried out based on the inspection data and on image data representative of the M images forming the 3D image.
[Augustinus discloses a conventional control unit/evaluation unit, including a memory as required by the claim, configured to store calibration data and determine and control a treatment of the card; para. 0083: “In other embodiments, a separate unit is used to determine the calibration data for the treatment unit, e.g., a calibration unit or a control unit of the treatment unit.”; para. 0102: “The system 10 also has an evaluation unit 15, which is coupled to both the image data acquisition unit 14 and the treatment unit 16. In particular, the evaluation unit may act as a control unit for the camera 14 and/or the treatment unit 16.”]
Regarding claim 15,
Augustinus discloses:
A customizing system for forming a 3D image [dealing with spatial inaccuracy during a laser engraving treatment of a card/passport; paras. 0003-5: “On the other hand, many objects and especially plastic cards are subject to varying conditions and tend to develop deformations and other spatial inconsistencies, which are very difficult to control or predict quantitatively. For example, treatment steps involving heat may lead to changing proportions and length scales on a plastic card, both globally over the whole card and locally in specific regions of the card… One way of dealing with said uncertainties is to include a calibration step before treating the object. For example, a calibration can be carried out when a plastic card is provided to a printer or a laser engraving unit. Thus, the treatment can be adjusted depending on the card's specific properties.”; para. 0016: “For example, the flat piece may be an ID card or a passport datapage. Such flat pieces have different security features, which may include incorporating different structures on the surface and internally.”] using a lenticular structure [i.e., a conventional lenticular array as a layer on the card; paras. 0014-0018: “Also, a lenticular array may be provided and the references position may be positioned in such an area.”; para. 0094: “The card 12 may be a plain plastic card, for example, made of polycarbonate PC. The card 12 may have a window, i.e., a transparent area, or a structured area, e.g., with a lenticular structure or a tactile feature on the surface.”] comprising:
a carrier layer on which is formed an arrangement of a plurality of sub-pixels of at least two different colors, each sub-pixel having a single color among said at least two different colors [Augustinus describes the conventional security element “fiducial”, or reference image, and a subpixel pattern of at least two colors, e.g., corresponding to a color of a portion that is irradiated and a portion that is not irradiated, as well as a conventional color structure; para. 0007: “In known methods, the position of fiducials can be measured using a subpixel pattern match with a local reference image as a model. Typically, this reference image is a real or a digitally created image very similar to the fiducial pattern to be located.”; para. 0017: “Also, the flat piece may have a pre-applied, printed color structure. The second reference pattern may be included in such a color structure of the flat piece.”]; and
a lenticular array comprising convergent lenses placed facing the sub-pixel arrangement [i.e., the lenticular array provided on the card; paras. 0014-0018: “…Also, a lenticular array may be provided and the references position may be positioned in such an area.”];
the customizing system comprising:
an inspecting unit configured to
perform a visual inspection of the lenticular structure [detecting a reference pattern/fiducial on the card; para. 0006: “In many cases, reference patterns or so-called fiducials are provided on the object and allow determining the object's condition, in particular its surface geometry. To this end, the reference patterns are detected and their localization is determined.”] by viewing the sub-pixel arrangement through the lenticular array by means of an image-capturing apparatus [e.g., a camera; para. 0023: “The image data can be acquired by a method and/or device as known in the art. For example, a camera can be used. The acquisition can be done such that the image data is acquired in a detection area on a surface of an object; in particular, the reference position is to be determined within the detection area or on this surface, respectively.”], said visual inspection comprising the following steps for each among M different viewing directions relative to the lenticular array, M being an integer at least equal to 2 [Augustinus discloses the known feature of lenticular structures, wherein the structure predictably presents a different image depending on the angle of viewing relative to the lenses of the lenticular array, and thus discloses obtaining image data for the M different viewing directions; para. 0018: “Also, the flat piece may have one or more layers. For example, an angle-selective top layer may be provided on the card in the form of an embossed lenticular screen.”]:
a1) positioning of the image-capturing apparatus in the viewing direction [e.g., positioning the camera/photosensitive device such that, e.g., the first and second reference patterns/fiducials and their corresponding positions are detected/determined; paras. 0011-13];
a2) detecting sub-pixels viewable through the lenses in said viewing direction [i.e., image data of the card is collected by the camera, through the lenticular structure; para. 0026: “In an embodiment, the image data is acquired using a color- or wavelength-selective photosensitive device. For example, a camera or other photosensitive device may be equipped with a filter. Thus, a reference pattern can be detected that is formed by a light signal that is easily detected within a certain wavelength range, but which is not easily visible under less specific lighting or detection conditions.”];
a computing unit configured to determine, from the color of the sub-pixels detected in a2) for each viewing direction, [the image data of the card surface that is acquired by the camera may be in grayscale format; para. 0031], respectively [Augustinus discloses a conventional control unit/evaluation unit, including a memory as required by the claim, configured to store calibration data and determine and control a treatment of the card; para. 0083: “In other embodiments, a separate unit is used to determine the calibration data for the treatment unit, e.g., a calibration unit or a control unit of the treatment unit.”; para. 0102: “The system 10 also has an evaluation unit 15, which is coupled to both the image data acquisition unit 14 and the treatment unit 16. In particular, the evaluation unit may act as a control unit for the camera 14 and/or the treatment unit 16.”]; and
a customizing unit configured to customize the sub-pixel arrangement [i.e., after calibrating using the reference positions, laser engraving may be done to customize the card; para. 0074]
However, although Augustinus discloses conventional structure capable of laser engraving/modifying an image on a card/passport, the laser directable, in a predictable manner, through a given lenticular structure on the image, it may be argued that Augustinus may not explicitly disclose conventional structure required by any functional relationship between the lenticular structure and the laser, e.g., the control unit being capable of the grayscale method steps above.
Whiteman, in the same field of endeavor [p. 1: “This invention relates to security devices, methods for their manufacture, and security articles and security documents to which the security devices may be incorporated. Security devices are used for example on documents of value such as banknotes, cheques, passports, identity cards, certificates of authenticity, fiscal stamps and other secure documents, in order to confirm their authenticity.”], teaches that the image formed under a lenticular structure may interlace at least 2 images in the singular 2D image on the card, such that 3D effects are generated [p. 21: “For example, in a "two channel" lenticular switch device which displays only two images (one across a first range of viewing angles and the other across the remaining viewing angles), where the lenses are of 30 micron width, each image section must have a width of 15 microns or less. More complicated lenticular effects such as animation, motion or 3D effects usually require more than two interlaced images and hence each section needs to be even finer in order to fit all of the image sections into the optical footprint of each lens. For instance, in a "six channel" device with six interlaced images, where the lenses are of 30 micron width, each image section must have a width of 5 microns or less.”].
Therefore, since Augustinus discloses the visual inspection step [i.e., calibration before engraving; para. 0074], and Whiteman teaches a controllable laser modifying the card through the lenticular structure is at least known and predictable [Whiteman, pp. 4-5: “Preferably, the portion of the laser marking in the second region of the transparent polymer layer is internal to the polymer substrate. That is, it is wholly contained within the substrate and does not extend to an external surface thereof. More preferably, this laser marking is also internal to a single (monolithic) one of the polymer layers, if the substrate is a multi-layered structure. That is, the marking does not extend to the surface of the polymer layer within which it is contained. This can be achieved through control of the focus position as discussed above.”], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Augustinus such that grayscale levels to be generated to reveal the 3D image are inspected, determined, and engraved [i.e., such that all the limitations of the claim are met], since Whiteman teaches this allows improved security through complicated 3D lenticular effects such as animation and motion [p. 1: “By "security device" we mean a feature which it is not possible to reproduce accurately by taking a visible light copy, e.g. through the use of standardly available photocopying or scanning equipment.”].
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustinus (US 20230252669 A1, claiming priority to EP 22155892.7, filed 2/9/2022) in view of Whiteman (WO 2019077317 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berthe (US 20220184990 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Augustinus in view of Whiteman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
However, Augustinus as modified by Whiteman does not disclose:
wherein, in the customizing step, perforations are produced in the sub-pixel arrangement by said focus of the laser radiation so as to reveal locally, through the sub-pixel arrangement, grayscale levels in the sub-pixels caused by underlying regions of the carrier layer located facing the perforations.
Berthe, in the same field of endeavor, discloses producing perforations [i.e., destroyed regions RG1 in fig. 8; para. 0025: “According to one particular embodiment, said destroyed regions comprise sub-pixels whose corresponding holographic grating is partially destroyed by laser micro-ablation.”] in a sub-pixel arrangement [i.e., holographic layer 12; para. 0073: “As described below, the holographic layer 12 intrinsically forms an arrangement 29 of pixels”], so as to reveal locally, through the sub-pixel arrangement, an image formed by the sub-pixels and underlying regions of the carrier layer located facing the perforations [an overall image is formed by the remaining subpixels combined with portions of underlying regions corresponding to the destroyed regions, e.g., see fig. 8 showing carrier layer 40 revealed by a destroyed region RG1 formed adjacent thereto; paras. 0073-74].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Augustinus and Whiteman, wherein, in the customizing step, perforations are produced in the sub-pixel arrangement by said focus of the laser radiation so as to reveal locally, through the sub-pixel arrangement, grayscale levels in the sub-pixels caused by underlying regions of the carrier layer located facing the perforations, since Berthe teaches this allows creating color shades so as to form an improved secure color image [para. 0004: “Thus, a known solution consists in printing on a medium a matrix of pixels composed of color sub-pixels and forming grayscales by laser carbonization in a laserable layer located facing the matrix of pixels, so as to reveal a customized color image which is difficult to falsify or reproduce.”; para. 0017: “The invention advantageously allows creating color shades so as to form a secure color image by the interaction between the color modulation means and the arrangement of pixels formed by the holographic layer.”].
Regarding claim 12, Augustinus in view of Whiteman and Berthe discloses the method as claimed in claim 11.
Augustinus as modified by Whiteman and Berthe further discloses:
the carrier layer being opaque at least in the visible spectrum,
wherein the perforations formed in the customizing step reveal locally, through the sub-pixel arrangement, dark underlying regions of the carrier layer, said dark underlying regions being located facing the perforations and forming all or some of the grayscale levels facing the sub-pixels [Berthe, para. 0132-133: “As illustrated, the laserable layer 40 thus comprises areas ( or volumes) 62, called opaque areas, locally opacified by a laser radiation LS2, these opaque areas being positioned facing the holographic structure 27 so as to locally mask all or part of the sub-pixels 32… The opaque (non-reflective) areas 60 are formed facing some sub-pixels 32 so as to produce grayscales in the final color image denoted here IG3.”].
Regarding claim 13, Augustinus in view of Whiteman and Berthe discloses the method as claimed in claim 11.
Augustinus as modified by Whiteman and Berthe further discloses:
the carrier layer comprising an ultraviolet-sensitive ink so that the 3D image is visible when said carrier layer is exposed to ultraviolet, the ink revealed through the perforations forming all or some of the grayscale levels facing the sub-pixels
[Whiteman, p. 58: “For example, the pattern 70 could be a printed ink layer, or a metallisation, or a laminated foil. The pattern 70 need not be visible to the naked eye under normal illumination but could comprise e.g. a fluorescent material in which case appropriate illumination will be needed to view the security effect.”;
Berthe, para. 0089: “…As a variant, the reliefs 24 of the holographic structure 27 can be made using an ultraviolet (UV) crosslinking technique. As these manufacturing techniques are known to those skilled in the art, they”].
Regarding claim 14, Augustinus in view of Whiteman and Berthe discloses the method as claimed in claim 11.
Augustinus as modified by Whiteman and Berthe further discloses:
the carrier layer being transparent at least in the visible spectrum, wherein the perforations reveal locally, through the sub-pixel arrangement, light underlying regions of the carrier layer, said light underlying regions being located facing the perforations when incident light in the visible spectrum is projected through the carrier layer, and forming all or some of the grayscale levels facing the sub-pixels [Berthe, para. 0117: “More particularly, a first particular embodiment of the secure document 2 (FIG. 1) is described with reference to FIGS. 8 and 9. In this example, the holographic layer 12 is interposed between transparent layers 40 and 42.”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm EST.
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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights