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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 2/22/26.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1,6,10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the composite image disclosed by Artigue does not include a boundary of the second graphic, marks of the second graphic and a portion of a plurality of marks of the first graphic. It is the examiner’s position that the that the reference of Artigue teaches the first and second graphic elements can be two distinct and complimentary parts of one image so that the exact superposition of both graphic security elements only make it possible to create the complete image (paragraph 023). The first and second graphic illustrated in fig. 5 forms the composite graphic shown in Fig. 5c. Artigue teaches the first and second graphics can be of different sizes (paragraph 026,058) and in the case of the different sizes of the graphics, the composite graphic inherently include a border of one of the graphics.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Artigue US Patent Application Publication 20110163167.
Regarding claim 10, Artigue et al. teaches a method, comprising:
capturing an image of an article having a first graphic overlaid with a second graphic such that at least a portion of the first graphic is underneath the second graphic to define a composite graphic, the composite graphic including a boundary of the second graphic, marks of the second graphic, and a portion of a plurality of marks of the first graphic (placing fig. 5a over fig. 5b forms a composite graphic 5c, the first and second graphic can be of different size which allows the composite image to include a border, paragraph 022-23,26,054,055,058);
detecting, from the image, the boundary of the second graphic (paragraph 020,023);
generating an identifier based on the composite graphic and executing an authentication action based on the identifier (paragraph 022,055).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosteller US Patent Application Publication 20150013893 in view of Artigue et al. US Patent Application Publication 20110163167.
Regarding claim 1, Mosteller teaches an article, comprising:
a first portion having a first graphic (210, paragraph 057);
a second portion having a second graphic (220, paragraph 057), the second portion being translucent (paragraph 058,069); and
a body extending between the first portion and the second portion, the body being deformable to affix the second portion at a position overlaid with the first portion, wherein the second graphic is configured to overlay with the first graphic (paragraph 09-010, 057-058). Mosteller is not explicit in teaching forming a composite graphic from the first and second graphic. Artigue in an analogous art teaches forming a composite graphic from the first and second graphic such that at least a portion of the first graphic is underneath the second graphic, the composite graphic includes a boundary of the second graphic, marks of the second graphic, and a portion of a plurality of marks of the first graphic (placing fig. 5a over fig. 5b forms a composite graphic 5c, the first and second graphic is not always the same size and therefore include the boundary of graphic, paragraph 022-24,054,055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Mosteller as disclosed by Artigue because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Mosteller in order to provide for a more secured identification system.
Regarding claim 2, Mosteller teaches the composite graphic is imageable to generate a unique identifier corresponding to the article (indicum, paragraph 016,058).
Regarding claim 5-7, Mosteller teaches the first graphic has a first surface area (210, paragraph 057), the second graphic has a second surface area (220, paragraph 057) but is silent on teaching the second surface area is smaller than the first surface area. Artigue in an analogous art teaches forming a composite graphic from the first and second graphic (paragraph 022,054,055) and the examiner consider the size of the surface area as a design choice based on the desired graphic. Artigue teaches the composite graphic is defined by a subset of the plurality of marks of the first graphic encompassed by the boundary (paragraph 022,054,055). Artigue teaches the second graphic includes a second plurality of marks within the boundary and the composite graphic is further defined by intersections between the marks of the second graphic and the subset of the plurality of marks of the first graphic (fig. 5, paragraph 054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Mosteller as disclosed by Artigue because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Mosteller in order to provide for a more secured identification system.
Regarding claim 8, Mosteller teaches the first graphic has a first color, and the second graphic has a second color distinct from the first color (paragraph 067).
Regarding claim 9, Mosteller teaches a data carrier supported by the body (216, fig.5, paragraph 058).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosteller US Patent Application Publication 20150013893 in view of Artigue et al. US Patent Application Publication 20110163167 and further in view of Shrestha US Patent 12010113.
Regarding claim 3, Mosteller teaches the article is a transaction card (paragraph 038) but is silent on teaching the article is a wristband having the first portion at a first end of the body, and the second portion at an opposing end of the body. Shrestha in an analogous art teaches the use of wristband as a transaction means as an alternative to a transaction card (col. 9 line 67-col. 10 line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Mosteller in view of Artigue as disclosed by Shrestha because such modification represents providing the transaction device in a wristband format as a substitution to a card format and providing the predictable result of a means for conducting transactions.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosteller US Patent Application Publication 20150013893 in view of Artigue et al. US Patent Application Publication 20110163167 in view of Shrestha US Patent 12010113 and further in view of Sutton et al. US Patent Application 20110318729..
Regarding claim 4, Mosteller is silent on teaching a translucent adhesive disposed on one of the first portion and the second portion, to affix the second portion to the first portion. Sutton et al in an analogous art teaches Sutton et al(paragraph 0122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Mosteller in view of Artigue in view of Shrestha as disclosed by Sutton because an adhesive means is required for holding the different layers of the transaction card together and a translucent adhesive allows the identification information to be read.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artigue et al. US Patent Application Publication 20110163167 in view of Leibenguth US Patent 11749048.
Regarding claim 11, Artigue et al. is silent on teaching the authentication action includes
enrolling the identifier; or retrieving a reference identifier, and comparing the reference identifier with the identifier. Leibenguth in an analogous art teaches the authentication action includes
enrolling the identifier; or retrieving a reference identifier, and comparing the reference identifier with the identifier (fig.4, fig.5, col. 7 lines 16-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Artigue et al. as disclosed by Leibenguth because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Artigue et al. by enabling the authentication process for the transaction card and further improving the security of the system.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Artigue et al. US Patent Application Publication 20110163167 in view of Horovitz et al. US Patent Application Publication 20110298922.
Regarding claims 12-13, Artigue et al. is silent on teaching generating the identifier includes detecting a background within the boundary of the second graphic; and generating a color value corresponding to the background. Horovitz et al in an analogous art teaches generating the identifier includes detecting a background within the boundary of the second graphic; and generating a color value corresponding to the background (paragraph 04,031-032). Horovitz et al teaches calibrating the image based on a first predetermined color corresponding to the first graphic, and a second predetermined color corresponding to the second graphic; and generating the color value in response to calibrating the image (paragraph 032-033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Artigue et al. as disclosed by Horovitz et al because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Artigue et al. by providing the means to further verify the authenticity of the graphic and further increase the security of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0316479
US 2010/0001077
US 8517,278.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights