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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s amendments, the examiner agrees that the rejection under 35 USC 102 in view of Albines U.S. Patent #12,106,592 is moot. However, the rejection under 35 USC 102 in view of Takenouchi U.S. Publication 2015/0036891 is still valid. The applicant’s arguments regarding the close proximity of the LEDs resulting in higher temperatures relative to other portions of the board is not persuasive since there are many LEDs all over the board and according to Figure 5, there are specific groupings, but no grouping is any more dense than other groupings. Arguendo, if the LEDs in the first portion are at a higher density, the temperature disparities aren’t relevant since the notch still provides that the temperature difference between the first and second portions is reduced because of the existence of the notch.
With respect to the applicant’s argument that Takenouchi fails to disclose an adjacent element, it should be noted that the adjacent element is unclear per the rejection under 35 USC 112 below. “An adjacent element” is an ambiguous phrase and without further limitations could apply to many structural elements in Takenouchi.
With respect to the applicant’s argument that Takenouchi fails to disclose “the cutout and the first portion of the row extend from a first end of the carrier element” is not persuasive since “first end” is a general term that could mean the general area of the first side of the carrier element for which Takenouchi does disclose in Figure 5.
For these reasons, the rejection of claims under 35 USC 102 in view of Takenouchi is maintained as presented below with amendments. In addition, the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112 is mostly maintained as updated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12-16 and 18-29 are 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.
With respect to claim 12 and 29, the limitation “the device comprises a heat hotspot on the carrier element” lacks a structural relationship. It is unclear if the claim is indicating a claimed structural element within the device or acknowledging an exterior characteristic. If the “heat hotspot” is to be part of the claimed device, it needs to be positively recited as a claimed element. Otherwise, any potential “heat hotspot” is an intended use limitation and cannot structurally define the carrier element.
With respect to claim 26, the limitation “wherein the heat hotspot corresponds to at least one of the plurality of radiation sources” is indefinite as to whether the heat hotspot is caused by the at least one source, is matched in a one to one correspondence with the at least one sources, or has another unclear relationship. Since the heat hotspot is not structurally defined (see rejection of claim 12 above), the relationship between the heat hotspot is also not defined. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 25, the limitation “a panel-shaped carrier” lacks clear definition. There are many well understood definitions of “panel-shaped” in various arts. For example, a panel shaped door may be rectangular with insets whereas a panel shaped skirt is made up of several triangular pieces. In its broadest sense, panel shaped refers to a flat surface. It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “panel-shaped” and the specification provides no additional definition. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 27 and 29, the limitation “wherein the carrier element has a heat transfer capability in a region of the carrier element located in the first portion of the row which is reduced in relation to that in a region of the carrier element located in a second portion of the row” is indefinite. It is unclear if this is a functional recitation wherein the heat transfer capability is caused by some use of the device or if there is a structural causation of the property. The heat transfer capability is not tied to any particular structure leaving the characteristic ambiguous. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 28, the limitation “the cutout extends from the first end in between an adjacent side of the carrier element and the first portion of the row” is unclear. It is unclear what “adjacent” refers to- whether it is adjacent to the cutout, the first portion of the row, a first end, or something else. Clarification is required.
The balance of claims is likewise rejection for failing to correct the deficiency of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 12-16 and 18-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takenouchi et al. U.S. Publication 2015/0036891.
With respect to claim 12 and 29, Takenouchi discloses an object verification device comprising:
A carrier element (Figure 4, 5, carrier element = support element 6)
A plurality of radiation sources arranged on the carrier element in a row configured to emit electromagnetic radiation for illuminating a valuable document (Figure 4, 5, plurality of radiation sources = LED array 7)
Wherein a cutout is provided in the carrier element in a manner spaced apart from the radiation sources arranged in the row and extending over a first portion of the row (Figure 4, 5, cutout = unlabeled rectangular notch in the side of the support 6, wherein first portion of the row = UV1-WL1 alongside the notch)
Wherein the carrier element has a heat transfer capability in a region of the carrier element located in the first portion of the row which is reduced in relation to that in a region of the carrier element located in another portion of the row (inherent that having a cutout will reduce the heat transfer of the carrier element by not having structure for the heat to transfer through, more so than the side areas that have a contiguous support surface)
Wherein the device comprises a heat hotspot on the carrier element, wherein the first portion of the row has a greater distance from the heat hotspot than the second portion of the row such that a temperature difference between the region of the carrier element located at the first portion of the row and the region of the carrier element located at the second portion of the row is reduced or compensated (Figure 5, wherein a heat hotspot = any light sources at the opposite end of the carrier 6 from the cutout, as labeled)
PNG
media_image1.png
489
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the device further comprises an adjacent element attached to a side of the carrier element from which the cutout extends, the adjacent element providing a heat sink (Figure 5, tab as labeled)
With respect to claim 13-16 and 18-28, Takenouchi discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 12 above. In addition, Takenouchi discloses:
13- The row in which the radiation sources are arranged runs in a substantially straight line (Figure 5, LED array 7)
14- the cutout extends substantially parallel to the row (Figure 5, cutout extends alongside end of one row = portion of row with UV1-WL2)
15- the first portion of the row, over which the cutout extends, is located at one end of the row (Figure 5, cutout extends alongside end of one row = portion of row with UV1-WL2)
16- the cutout is located at an edge of the carrier element (Figure 5, cutout is along edge of 6)
18- the carrier element has a carrier on which the radiation sources are arranged and in which the cutout is provided (Figure 5)
19- the cutout is in the form of a depression, in particular a contiguous depression, in the carrier element (Figure 5, the cutout is a bump in along edge of 6 = depression)
20- the cutout is in the form of a perforation, in particular a contiguous perforation (Figure 5, the cutout is an area perforated from the surface 6)
21- a device for detecting the radiation emanating from a valuable document irradiated with electromagnetic radiation by the illumination device (Figure 4, device for detecting radiation = camera 13)
22/23- device for processing valuable documents includes testing the valuable documents (P.0008, P.0085, testing = verifying)
24- the carrier is a printed circuit board (P.0071, inherent that “board” refers to printed circuit board since the “board” has circuits and electrical connections)
25- the carrier is a panel-shaped carrier that is part of a housing of an illumination module in which the carrier element is integrated (Figure 1 and 5, support 6 = panel shaped carrier, housing = object reading device 1, P.0071)
26- the heat hotspot corresponds to at least one of a plurality of radiation sources, the at least one of the plurality of radiation sources being located in the second portion of the row (Figure 5, sources circled in hotspot label)
27- wherein the cutout and the first portion of the row extend from a first end of the carrier element (Figure 5, the first end = left side of carrier 6)
28- the cutout extends from the first end in between an adjacent side of the carrier element and the first portion of the row (Figure 5, an adjacent side = top edge of 6, first portion of row labeled)
Conclusion
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 REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights