DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on March 26,2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 are pending of which claim 5 is withdrawn and claims 1-4 are now under consideration.
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.
3. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faykish et al. (US 5169707).
Faykish et al. disclose a retroreflective security laminate (equivalent to the polymer multilayer structure of the claimed invention) comprising a) a base sheet comprising microspheres arranged in substantially a monolayer with partially-light-transmissive reflectors disposed behind the rear surfaces thereof, the microspheres being at least partially embedded in a transparent binder layer; b) a cover sheet bonded to the front side of the base sheet and c) a pattern of image-forming material visible as a directionally variable image, referred to herein as a primary legend. FIG. 1 illustrates a portion of an illustrative embodiment of security laminate 10. As shown in the figure, laminate 10 comprises base sheet 12 and cover sheet 14. Pattern 13 is disposed in front of the monolayer of microspheres 16. Base sheet 12 comprises microspheres 16 which are embedded in binder 18 with reflector 20 disposed behind the rear surfaces thereof. As shown, binder 18 provides a spacing layer immediately behind the rear surface of microspheres 16. Typically, laminate 10 further comprises attachment adhesive 22 on the back side thereof. The primary legend is made by a visible pattern of image-forming material disposed in front of the monolayer of microspheres, i.e., on the opposite side of the monolayer as the partially-light-transmissive reflectors and the same side of the monolayer as the cover sheet. As mentioned above, the pattern of image-forming material that forms the primary legend may be disposed at the interface of the cover sheet and the base sheet, it may be embedded within the cover sheet, or it may be disposed on the front surface of the cover sheet. A preferred image-forming material is nacreous pigment particles or flakes, usually arranged in an aggregation of multiple layers of overlapping flakes. Preferably, the pigment particles or flakes in the pattern are substantially uniformly oriented such that the pattern exhibits discernibly different light-reflecting characteristics when viewed from different angles under ordinary diffuse lighting conditions. Such differing characteristics might include changes in color or opacity with changes in viewing angle. Illustrative examples of useful nacreous pigment particles include bismuth oxychloride, lead subcarbonate, titanium dioxide coated mica (meeting the limitations of claim 4), and guanine.
Faykish et al. further teach that the optimum index of refraction for the laminate will depend in part upon the overall construction of the security laminate, i.e., whether the binder provides a spacing layer behind microspheres, the thickness of such spacing layer, thickness of the cover sheet, indexes of refraction of these elements, etc. In one illustrative embodiment, microspheres which are substantially spherical and have an index of refraction of about 2.25 and an average diameter of about 60 micrometers will be useful with a binder material that comprises polyvinyl butyral (meeting the limitations of claim 3) and provides a spacing layer having a thickness of about 12 microns and a refractive index of between about 1.4 and about 1.5.
With regards to the limitation that the two or more polymer layers have a refractive indices that differ by 0.3 or more, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the refractive index difference given that Faykish et al. specifically teaches that the optimum index of refraction for the laminate will depend in part upon the overall construction of the security laminate, i.e., whether the binder provides a spacing layer behind microspheres, the thickness of such spacing layer, thickness of the cover sheet, indexes of refraction of these elements, etc.
With regards to the limitation wherein each of the two or more polymer layers has a predetermined thickness in a range of 95 to 195 nm, the Examiner would like to point out that workable physical properties such as thicknesses are deemed to be obvious routine optimizations to one of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by the desire to obtain the required properties.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEEBA AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-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, CALLIE SHOSHO can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SHEEBA AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights