DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claim 10 is withdrawn.
The claims drawn to a security article and method of production were elected on 09/25/24.
In respect to claim 10, a method of using a processor to receive the first and/or second codes from the article (already printed) and match them with another corresponding code in a database is not drawn to the method of product, but rather a method of verification, which is non-elected.
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, 4-8, 16-19, 21-22, 24-25, and 31, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutton et al. (US 4,033,059) in view of Baur et al. (EP 3,009,272).
In respect to claims 1, Hutton et al. disclose a method of producing a security feature comprising: printing a first code (TEN) on a substrate to form a first plurality of raised features on the substrate that comprise first lines that are a first height and printing a second code (O’s) on the substrate to form a second plurality of raised features on the substrate that comprise second lines that are a second height, and portions of each of the first and second lines are at different angles (90° different) (Col. 16, 8-32; Figs. 9-10); the heights of the lines may further be different to effectuate the latent effect (Fig. 3). Hutton et al. further inherently disclose a plurality of articles, as readily ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art in describing banknote production (wherein serial numbers are also readily inferred as inherent).
However, Hutton et al. do not disclose that at least the first code is unique to the article (not printed on any other article), however, Baur et al. teach a very similar invention which prints several different articles each having a similar line pattern (Figure 2B) each of which produces a latent effect with tilting (0030-0031). Baur et al. further teach that inkjet printing can be used in lieu fixed printing methods e.g. screen printing (and also applicable to the intaglio printing of Hutton et al.) to produce serialization of the latent image, thus a “serial number” which is unique to that product) (0033, 0039). It is readily inferred by of one of ordinary skill in the art that an inkjet process of serial numbers requires identification of each of the first and second code before printing the code (which also requires storage of the code to allow for uniqueness e.g. a number cannot be printed twice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the fixed printing (e.g. intaglio) of a fixed alphanumeric code (e.g. “TEN”) taught in Hutton et al. with inkjet printing in view of Baur et al. to provide a unique code to each product to allow authentication/verification of the product (e.g. banknote) (0011).
In respect to claims 4-8, Hutton et al. further disclose the image element includes a plurality of raised parallel lines in an array (Figs. 1 & 3), and wherein a first portion and second portion of the plurality of raised parallel lines differ in height, thickness, and/or angle to form different images (Fig. 9-10). The first code is human readable and the second code comprises circles in the background which are machine readable.
In respect to claims 16-19, Hutton et al. disclose the claimed invention for the reasons stated above.
In respect to claims 21-22, 24-25, and 31, Hutton et al. in view of Baur et al. teach the claimed invention for the reasons stated above. Inkjet printing, as taught by Baur et al. provides for ink/toner printing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Hutton et al. was applied earlier in prosecution, as it is considered the closest prior art. The art of removed with the amendment of uniqueness of the number and ink/toner printing, which obviated its use of intaglio printing. The Stone reference was then applied as a 35 USC 102 rejection to most of the claims, with Baur et al. as a teaching for the 35 USC 103 rejection.
The last amendment further obviated Stone as a 35 USC 102 rejection, which finally combined Hutton et al. with the teaching of Baur et al. as a 35 USC 103 rejection of all claims.
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 KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, 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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights