DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed 04/24/2026. Applicant filed a Response on 06/24/2026.
Claims 14-26 are pending.
Claims 14-19 are rejected.
Claims 20-26 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 14-19, in the reply filed on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 20-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/24/2026.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the relative proportions by weight determined in step B" during lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending step B of claim 14 to read “relative proportions by weight” can overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starick et al, DE 102017127923 A1 (Starick).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Starick. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 14-15, Starick teaches a method for reading luminescent codes comprising the excitation of phosphors and/or phosphor combinations present in a security element with a predetermined invisible excitation range which is generated by UV or IR radiation sources (Starick; [0074]). The phosphors can be excitable inorganic phosphor pigments or organic luminescent pigments (Starick; [0037] and [0040]). The selected phosphors are incorporated into carrier materials and can be printed using usual printing methods (i.e., a method for producing a luminescent printing ink having a luminescence under non-visible excitation light comprising at least two luminescent pigments) (Starick; [0072]).
A coding system which comprises at least three phosphors are selected from their emission lines/bands and/or the intensity of these emission lines/bands such that they exhibit identical color coordinates in a CIE standard color system under the specified excitation conditions, or at least color coordinates (x and y) that lie within a tolerance color range of the CIE standard color system such a MacAdam ellipse (i.e., specifying a desired target spectral locus using standard chromaticity coordinates x and y, and wherein at least two luminescent pigments are specified by their luminescent spectra to obtain a luminescent printing ink having a luminescence of which the spectral locus under non-visible excitation light corresponds substantially to the target spectral locus) (Starick; [0018-0019] and [0063-0064]).
An advantage of the coding system is that the luminescent security elements have different color coordinates in the CIE standard color system under different predetermined excitations, or at least color coordinates that lie within a different color tolerance range of the CIE color system, such that they are perceived as the same color under a certain predetermined excitation, but have a different color identity under another predetermined excitation (Starick; [0055]).
The CIE color coordinates of the individual phosphors can be calculated from the emission spectra, as well as how many combinations can be used to realize the target color point or tolerance color range. Based on these measurement results, the mixing ratios of the components, which are important for the production of the phosphor combinations, can be predicted. The mixing ratios are determined for the creation of the color-identical security elements of the security feature (i.e., proportions of at least two luminescent pigments are determined from the luminescence spectra of the luminescent pigments, from spectral value functions, and from the specified target spectral locus, and the at least two luminescent pigments are mixed in the determined proportions to obtain a luminescent printing ink having a luminescence of which the spectral locus under non-visible excitation light corresponds substantially to the target spectral locus) (Starick; [0070-0071]).
Figs 1a-e show the emission spectra of three model phosphors and the corresponding color coordinates in a CIE standard color system (Starick; [0084] and page 24 of original DE document, Fig 1a-e). Fig 1a and Fig 1b illustrate the target spectral locus. Figs 1c-e show the chromaticity coordinates x and y of exactly three specified luminescent phosphors (claim 15). See also Starick at [0087-0089] and the translation of Table 1 on page 42.
Table 2 shows that the predetermined target color location can be achieved through different combinations of the three phosphors, which have specific mixing ratios/mole fraction% (Starick; [0091] and page 44, translation of Table 2).
See Tables 3-7 and Fig. 2-9 of original DE document for additional examples.
Starick does not explicitly teach determining a proportion by weight of the luminescent pigments as claimed (emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mathematically calculate a weight proportion of the luminescent pigment mixtures of Stanick from the measured mole percentages, depending on the commercially available form of the luminescent phosphors, in order to provide ease of measuring, dispensing and mixing of the luminescent pigments, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, Starick is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above, wherein the predetermined target coordinate/color location can be achieved through different combinations of the three phosphors, which have specific mixing ratios/mole fraction percentages, which can be used to calculate the corresponding weight percentages (Starick; [0091] and page 44, translation of Table 2). Such weight percentages read on the claimed “absolute proportions by weight” of the at least two color luminescent pigments. The security feature coding system uses phosphor combinations selected such that the emission spectra, for example, when excited with both UV-A and UV-B radiation sources, have identical color coordinates or lie within a specified color tolerance range in the CIE standard color system, i.e., such that they are perceived by the observer as having the same color under both excitation conditions (Starick; [0079]).
While Starick does not explicitly disclose specifying an overall pigmentation of the luminescent pigments or a maximum pigmentation of one of the luminescent pigments as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the proportions by weight of the phosphor combinations of Starick, including over the presently claimed absolute proportions by weight, in order to obtain a phosphor combination wherein the emission spectra when excited with, for example, both UV-A and UV-B radiation sources, have identical color coordinates or lie within a specified color tolerance range in the CIE standard color system, such that they are perceived by the observer as having the same color under the excitation conditions.
In a further process step, the selected phosphor combinations are incorporated into carrier materials of the respective security of valuable documents. This can be carried out by the usual printing methods or using other coating technologies (Starick; [0072]). Experimental verification is necessary to take into account the interactions between the phosphors used and the optical properties of other organic or inorganic components (binders, additives) of the color compositions used for the application of the security feature, and the optical effects of the carrier used (Starick; [0071]).
Starick does not explicitly teach introducing the luminescent pigments into a clear coat as claimed (emphasis added).
In light of the motivation provided by Stanick to select carrier material components based upon their interaction with the phosphors used and their optical properties, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the phosphor combinations of Starick to carrier compositions, including a clear coat as claimed, in order to obtain a luminescent printing ink with the desired optical effect, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, Starick is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. Stanick teaches that the three luminescent security elements (i.e., pigments), when excited in the non-visible spectral range, may exhibit color coordinates that lie within the tolerance color range of the CIE color system, for example a MacAdam ellipse (i.e., a desired color distance tolerance to the target spectral locus is specified in addition to the desired target spectral locus) (Starick; [0028]).
The CIE color coordinates of the individual phosphors can be calculated from the emission spectra, as well as how many combinations can be used to realize the target color point or tolerance color range. Based on these measurement results, the mixing ratios of the components can be predicted. The mixing ratios are determined for the creation of the color-identical security elements of the security feature (i.e., a tolerance range for the relative fraction of each of the at least two luminescent pigments is in each case determined, and the at least two luminescent pigments are mixed in proportions, each within the tolerance weight ranges for the luminescent pigments, in order to obtain a luminescent printing ink having a luminescence of which the spectral locus under non-visible excitation light corresponds substantially to the desired target spectral locus (Stanick; [0070-0071]).
Although Starick does not explicitly teach a tolerance weight range as claimed (emphasis added), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mathematically calculate a tolerance weight range of the luminescent pigment mixtures of Starick, depending on the commercially available form of the luminescent phosphors, in order to provide ease of measuring, dispensing and mixing of the luminescent pigments, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starick as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Miller, “The Matrix Algebra and Color Reproduction” (Miller).
Regarding claim 16, Starick is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. The CIE color coordinates of the individual phosphors can be calculated from the emission spectra, as well as how many combinations can be used to realize the target color point or tolerance color range. Based on these measurement results, the mixing ratios of the components, which are important for the production of the phosphor combinations, can be predicted. The mixing ratios are determined for the creation of the color-identical security elements of the security feature (i.e., proportions of at least two luminescent pigments are determined from the luminescence spectra of the luminescent pigments, from spectral value functions, and from the specified target spectral locus, and the at least two luminescent pigments are mixed in the determined proportions to obtain a luminescent printing ink having a luminescence of which the spectral locus under non-visible excitation light corresponds substantially to the target spectral locus) (Starick; [0070-0071]).
The coding system may comprise at least three phosphors which are assembled into security features in the form of security elements, wherein each security element is assigned a code which is formed from the spectral sequence of the individually distinguished emission lines or emission bands of the at least three phosphors (i.e., “n” set wavelength) and/or the intensity ratios of these emission lines and/or emission bands (i.e., “n” intensities) (Starick; [0063]).
At the same time, all the luminescent security elements assembled to form a security feature exhibit identical color coordinates in a CIE standard color system under the specified excitation conditions, or at least color coordinates that lie within a tolerance color range of the CIE standard color system (i.e., standard chromaticity coordinates x, y of the specified target spectral locus). In this way, it can be ensured that all security elements of a security feature equipped with luminescence codes are perceived by the viewer as having the same color under defined excitation conditions (Starick; [0064]).
Starick does not explicitly teach wherein the luminescent spectra of the luminescent pigments and the spectral value functions are each specified as a vector of n intensities at n set wavelengths, and that color valences X', Y', Z' are determined from the standard chromaticity coordinates x, y of the specified target spectral locus; a luminescent color matrix is determined from the luminescent spectra of the luminescent pigments and the spectral value functions; the luminescent color matrix is inverted in order to obtain an inverse luminescent color matrix; and the relative proportions by weight of the at least two luminescent pigments are determined from the inverse luminescent color matrix and the color valences X', Y' Z' of the specified target spectral locus as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Miller teaches that the color of an object is characterized by reflection densities, measured through three primary color filters. All colors which appear alike to the eye will be represented by the same densities, and all colors of the same densities will appear alike to the eye (i.e., perceived by the viewer as having the same color) (Miller; page 477, para 1). Correctly reproducing an original image is simply that of synthesizing colors which will have the same three densities (Miller; page 477; para 2).
Colors are synthesized by superimposing three subtractive primaries, cyan, magenta and yellow. Each primary is characterized by three densities. The set of primaries is accordingly characterized by nine densities which are arranged as a square matrix (i.e., a color matrix is determined) (Miller; page 477, para 3).
Since color is characterized by three densities, it is a vector quantity, and this vector density is represented by d. The components of d are represented by x, y and z, and the vector density of the reproduction D is represented by X, Y, and Z (i.e., vector color valences X', Y', Z' are determined from the standard chromaticity coordinates x, y) (Miller; page 478, para 1).
Precision reproduction utilizes forming each element by so-called “masking” methods. The masking matrix used is the inverse of the color matrix (c-1) (Miller; page 478; para. 2). The inverse matrix (c-1) serves to analyze the color into its constituent primaries (i.e., the color matrix is inverted in order to obtain an inverse color matrix; and the constituent primaries are determined from the inverse luminescent color matrix and the color valences X', Y', Z') (Miller; page 480, para 2).
In summary, Miller teaches that the precision reproduction of a color is achieved by determining a vector density, forming a color matrix, and inverting the color matrix to analyze the color constituents.
In light of the motivation provided Miller to use an inverse color matrix in order to accurately analyze the constituents of a color, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specified a vector of each target color coordinate of Starick, determine X', Y', Z' and a luminescent color matrix from the target spectral locus, and invert the luminescent color matrix in order to obtain the constituents, including the weight percentages thereof, of the target luminescent color, in order to obtain precision reproduction of the desired target color point such that the resulting luminescent pigments of the security feature appear alike to the eye under the used excitation method, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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.
Starick, alone or in combination with Miller, does not disclose or suggest wherein during step B):
BO) at least two boundary spectral loci with standard chromaticity coordinates xG, yG are determined from the specified target spectral locus and the specified color distance tolerance,
B2) a luminescent color matrix is determined from the luminescent spectra of the luminescent pigments and the spectral value functions,
B3) the luminescent color matrix is inverted in order to obtain an inverse luminescent color matrix, and, for each boundary spectral locus:
B1') color valences XG', YG' ZG' associated with the boundary spectral locus are determined from the standard chromaticity coordinates xG, yG,
B4') from the inverse luminescent color matrix and the determined color valences XG', YG', ZG' of the boundary spectral locus, relative proportions by weight associated with the at least two luminescent pigments are determined, and then
B5') from the relative proportions by weight of the at least two luminescent pigments for the boundary spectral loci, a tolerance weight range for the relative weight fraction of each of the at least two luminescent pigments are determined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rejections over these references would be cumulative to the above rejections.
Schoewel et al, US 2023/0357633 A1, discloses a phosphor composition including a first and second phosphor defined by their x and y coordinates on the CIE chromaticity diagram (Abstract and Fig. 1). It is possible to precisely define the target color location in the mixture via the mixing ratio, both in the cx and yx direction [0028] (i.e., mixing two phosphors in a mixing ratio determined from the desired target spectral locus using chromaticity coordinates x and y). Schoewel et al is the US equivalent of DE102020212154 A1.
Peeters et al, US 2020/0088383A1, discloses luminescent materials according to their CIE x and y coordinates, which when combined in the right ratios and radiatively coupled with a blue light source, provide a white lightning device [0111].
Dorier et al, US 20180361778A1, teaches up to three optical density vectors in the OD RGB values can be defined. These vectors can be used to construct an OD convolution matrix. The inversion of this matrix provides a means to determine the concentration of each ink of a mark [0291]. The first and second material used may be luminescent materials based on their spectral characteristics [0120].
Starick et al, WO 2020103968 A1, discloses a coding system wherein the color coordinates of luminescent phosphor safety elements are set via a mixing ratio.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights