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Claim 10 is withdrawn.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 § 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 23 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 21, from which claim 23 depends, newly recites that each of a plurality of articles receives both the first and second code. Claim 23 recites that each of the first code and second code uniquely identifies a different article, which is unclear and indefinite
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 16-17, 19, 21-24, 31-32, 35-37, and 39-40, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by and Baur et al. (EP 3,009,272) (See NPL for English Translation).
In respect to claim 1, 4, 6, 33, and 39, Baur et al. disclose a method comprising: identifying a data pair (intrinsic that the printed information must for be “identified”) comprising a first code and a second code; and printing via a printing device (e.g. inkjet) which on a planar substrate 1 the first and second code, which after breaking along the dotted lines, forms a plurality of articles (10a-10n) (Fig. 2B; 0012); the first code may be formed by a first plurality of raised features (parallel lines) on the substrate at a first height above the substrate (e.g. lines 212) and a second code (inverse of first) may be created with a second plurality of raised features (parallel lines) on the substrate at a second height above the substrate (e.g. lines 211), forming printed arrays on the substrate [The “second code” may further be construed as a third deviation in height] (0030); each of the plurality of lines is provided via ink toner, such as by inkjet printing (0007); each of the first code and second code appear as an image when viewed from first and second angles (0009; 0031); at least one of the codes is not printed on the any other article of the plurality of articles i.e. the height of the code is unique and provides a serialization due to the speed/angle which darkening occurs [The code may also be different in “a different arrangement of lines”] (0031). In use of an inkjet printer, it is readily ascertained by one of ordinary skill to infer a processor.
In respect to claims 7 and 8, the first and/or second image are formed by lines which are “arbitrarily graduated” to form the latent image (0030), either of which is functionally capable of being human-readable or machine-readable.
In respect to claims 16-17 and 19, Baur et al. disclose the claimed invention for the reasons stated above.
In respect to claims 21-24 and 31-32, Baur et al. disclose the claimed invention for the reasons stated above.
In respect to claims 35-37, Baur et al. disclose an inkjet printing of the security feature which requires a process to first generate an image element, and further “processing of components of the image elements” which are the lines which form the security element.
In respect to claim 40, Baur et al. disclose that the first code uniquely identifies the article, using it as a “verification code” is intended use i.e. a “method of verifying” is not being positively recited, and if it was, it would be withdrawn (see Election).
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, 4-5, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone (CA 2,699,848) in view of Baur et al. (EP 3,009,272) (See NPL for English Translation).
Stone discloses a method comprising: identifying a data pair (intrinsic that the printed information must for be “identified”) comprising a first code and a second code; and printing via a printing device which on a planar substrate 1 the first and second code (Fig. 3A) the first code may be formed by a first plurality of raised features (parallel lines) 21 on the substrate at a first thickness above the substrate and a second code may be created with a second plurality of raised features (parallel lines) 5 on the substrate at a second thickness above the substrate, forming printed arrays on the substrate (Pg. 8, 32 – Pg. 9, 21), the lines can also vary by height (Pg. 2, 27-29); each of the plurality of lines is provided via ink toner, via e.g. intaglio printing; each of the first code and second code appear as an image when viewed from first and second angles (Fig. 3A-3B); Stone further discloses that the codes may together form a serial number, which is unique (Pg. 3, 19-21), which infers that a portion of the pattern, e.g. first code is also unique.
Stone prefers intaglio printing, but states “other forms of relief printing” may be used (Pg. 4, 23-24). In disclosing a serial number, Stone suggests a permanent plate (screen printing, intaglio printing) would not be suitable, since a serial number require a change of printing in every article. Stone does not enable this suggestion. However, Baur et al. teach a very similar invention with security verification through different parallel ink heights and further teaches serializing the different articles (See 35 USC 102 rejection above). It would have been obvious to substitute the intaglio printing process taught in Stone with an inkjet printing in view of Baur et al. to provide the same tilt latent image effect with the added benefit of serialization, wherein Baur et al. specifically calls out intaglio or screen printing as unsuitable for serialization (0011). The fact that Stone explicitly recites serialization, the teaching of Baur et al. provides the means to do so.
Claims 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur et al. (EP 3,009,272) (See NPL for English Translation) in view of Adamczyk et al. (DE 10-2006-006501) (See NPL for English Translation).
Baur et al. substantially disclose the claimed invention for the reasons stated above, but do not disclose taggants in the ink to render it UV active, however, Adamczyk et al. teach a similar method of providing a first and second plurality of ink lines with different visual effects by viewing angle (Abstract). Adamczyk et al. further teach providing the ink with UV-active taggants (0043). It would have been obvious to provide the ink/toner used in Baur et al. with UV-active taggants in view of Adamczyk et al. to allow the ink/toner to be machine readable to further security (0043).
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.
Conclusion
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, Daniel Troy, 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