DETAILED ACTION
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 1-3 and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vincent (US 2012/0182443).
In respect to claims 1, 3, and 6-7, Vincent discloses a data carrier comprising: a carrier body 2; a printing layer “exposure screen” 4 (colored matter formed of printed metallic ink) (0043), and a marking layer “combined images” 3, the printing layer 4 arranged on the top surface of the carrier body 2, and the printing layer 4 arranged above the marking layer 3(Fig. 1); the marking layer 3is configured to be impinged with electromagnetic radiation (laser) such that a marking element is generated (e.g. demetallization) (0121)); both the marking layer 3 and the printing layer 4 may contain reactive elements such that reaction with the electromagnetic radiation, specifically ablation/evaportion “demetallization” (0121). Vincent discloses that the alignment between the reacted element (printing layer) and the marking elements (marking layer) correspond to a spatial arrangement in the “extension direction” (y-axis) and/or “transverse direction” (x-axis) as can be clearly seen in the Figure 1 which shows a direct “extension direction” alignment between the reacted elements and the marking elements (directly perpendicular alignment, Icon 4) as well as both the “extension direction” and “transverse direction” (diagonal alignments, Icons 1, 2, 3) (Fig. 1).
In respect to the amended subject matter, Vincent discloses that the “reacted element is generated by physical…modification of the reactive element upon irradiation of electromagnetic radiation (R)”, since the demetalization disclosed by Vincent is ablation to form the reacted element, specifically physical and irreversible modification (evaporated removal of the metal layer in the “reacted” locations). The entire metal layer constitutes the “reactive element” which upon irradiation, forms an ablation (removal of material) which is physical and irreversible.
In respect to claim 2, Vincent discloses a “surface structure” formed of the reacted elements (Fig. 1).
In respect to claim 5, Vincent discloses that the reactive element (printing layer) may be configured to modify propagation of the laser.
In respect to claim 8, Vincent discloses that a grid (“exposure screen”) is formed by the reacted elements (printing layer) (Fig. 2).
In respect to claims 9-10, Vincent discloses that the printing layer and marking layer may be configured such that the marking element and the reacted element are formed simultaneously with the same electromagnetic radiation (laser). In discloses that both may be demetallized (0121), although not explicitly taught as simultaneous, they are capable of being formed as such. Although product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
In respect to claim 11, Vincent discloses that the marking layer and printing layer are arranged at a distance from one another (Fig. 1),
In respect to claim 12-15, Vincent discloses the claimed invention for the reasons stated above. Furthermore, intrinsically the marking element or printing layer must be provided before the other.
In respect to claims 16 and 17, Vincent discloses that the data carrier may comprise banknotes or passports (0049).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant contends that Vincent fails to disclose the amendments of the independent claims, however, this is not persuasive as detailed in the 35 USC 102 rejection. The applicant frequently mentions “bleaching” as a required element of the claim, however, it is an optional element of the claim. The claims list an “ablated element” as an option for the “reacted element”, which Vincent fully and clearly discloses.
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
