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
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of species A (figures 3A-3C; claims 1-7, 12-18, 20-21, 27-28, 31, 35, 38, and 58) in the reply filed on 05/04/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that an appropriate species selection should be based on embodiments illustrated in the figures illustrating the density of the moveable entities / particles relative to the fluid media in which they are immersed. This is not found persuasive because figures 3a-3c, 5a-5d, 7a-7b, 9a-9c, and 11 are directed to multiple species. They are drawn to patentably distinct embodiments of the inventions, such as the different density value of the dispersion liquid in the microscopic chamber. Therefore, search and examination of both species could not be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 21 depends on a canceled claim (claim 19). Therefore, claim 21 is also canceled.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretations
In claim 1, the limitation “each entity moveable within the compartment within which it is contained when the device is subjected to an external influence or force, wherein resulting movement of at least some of the entities includes common, at least partially synchronized movement thereof, within and relative to their respective compartments, across at least a portion of the compartments” appears to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the second part of the limitation is no longer valid if the device is not subjected to an external influence or force.
In claim 14, the limitation “when the device is subjected to the external influence or force, the compositions within the adjacent microchambers within said area react within their respective microchambers in a uniform or substantially uniform manner in terms of movement of the entities they contain, such that the collective movement of the entities within the microchambers of the area forms at least a part of the moiré magnified image” appears to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the second part of the limitation is no longer valid if the device is not subjected to an external influence or force.
In claim 16, the limitation “when the device is subjected to the external influence or force the compositions within the adjacent microchambers within said area react in a uniform or substantially uniform manner in terms of translating movement of the entities they contain and/or the resulting dynamic displacement of the liquid caused by translating movement of the entities they contain, such that the collective translating movement and/or the dynamic displacement forms at least a part of the moiré magnified image” appears to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the second part of the limitation is no longer valid if the device is not subjected to an external influence or force.
In claim 31, the limitation “wherein at least some of the microchambers comprise walls with surface content or relief, wherein the surface content or relief is visible as part of the moiré magnified image when the entities within the microchambers to arrange themselves with respect to the surface content or relief following exposure of the device to an external influence or force” appears to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the first part of the limitation is no longer valid if the device is not subjected to an external influence or force.
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 1-7, 39, 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Macpherson et al. (US 2017/0368865).
Regarding claim 1, Macpherson et al. (figures 1-12) discloses a device comprising:
an array of compartments (20);
one or more entities, with at least a majority of the compartments containing one or more of the entities therein, each entity moveable within the compartment within which it is contained when the device is subjected to an external influence or force, wherein resulting movement of at least some of the entities includes common, at least partially synchronized movement thereof, within and relative to their respective compartments, across at least a portion of the compartments (microscopic elements 21; The microscopic elements (88) may also act as lenses that deviate light so as to change, reveal or magnify a static printed device. Alternatively, complex devices may be patterned directly on the microscopic elements (88) to enhance to effect caused by their rotation, realignment or displacement (e.g. via sedimentation or flotation); see at least paragraph 0105); and
an image generator to selectively combine at least some of the common, synchronized movement of the entities within and relative to their respective compartments into an observable image (The image (530) of the cuvette (520) in the mirror provides a mean for the simultaneous observation of the bottom and top of the liquid solution (500); see at least paragraph 0130; figure 16).
The limitation, “each entity moveable within the compartment within which it is contained when the device is subjected to an external influence or force, wherein resulting movement of at least some of the entities includes common, at least partially synchronized movement thereof, within and relative to their respective compartments, across at least a portion of the compartments; an image generator to selectively combine at least some of the common, synchronized movement of the entities within and relative to their respective compartments into an observable image” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 2, Macpherson et al. (figures 1-12) discloses wherein the entities comprise one or more of: liquids, gases, solids, particles, flakes, beads, Janus particles, liquid-containing particles, gas-containing particles, bubbles, foam particles, foam beads (microscopic elements 21; see at least paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 3, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) discloses wherein the compartments comprise walls to prevent loss or leakage of the one or more entities contained in each compartment, and to separate the contents of the compartments from one another (28).
The limitations " to prevent loss or leakage of the one or more entities contained in each compartment, and to separate the contents of the compartments from one another " are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim
Regarding claim 4, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) discloses wherein the entities also undergo random or non-synchronized movement that does not substantially contribute to the observable or detectable image, or that is selectively removed from the observable or detectable image (The results of FIGS. 15A-C also illustrate that the Janus microparticles naturally reorganize as a relatively uniform monolayer after perturbation. This arises from the sedimentation of the Janus microparticle with gravitation, combined with random displacements caused by Brownian motion; see at least paragraph 0129).
The limitation, “each entity moveable within the compartment within which it is contained when the device is subjected to an external influence or force, wherein resulting movement of at least some of the entities includes common, at least partially synchronized movement thereof, within and relative to their respective compartments, across at least a portion of the compartments; an image generator to selectively combine at least some of the common, synchronized movement of the entities within and relative to their respective compartments into an observable image” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 5, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) discloses wherein the external influence or force comprises gravity, and at least some of the entities are caused to fall or to float within the compartments under the influence of gravity, thereby to generate said common, synchronized movement (After the end of the reorientation (at T>T.sub.1), in FIG. 6C, the microscopic elements are still in a state of mechanical non-equilibrium and thus rotate or realign in the presence of gravity, in order to eventually re-establish a state of substantial mechanical equilibrium; see at least paragraph 0101).
The limitation, “wherein the external influence or force comprises gravity, and at least some of the entities are caused to fall or to float within the compartments under the influence of gravity, thereby to generate said common, synchronized movement” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 6, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) discloses wherein the external influence comprises one or more selected from: shaking the device; tipping the device; flipping the device; applying pressure to the device; removing pressure from the device; applying a discontinuous or continuous force to the device; rotating the device; re-orienting the device with respect to gravity; bending the device; spinning the device; folding the device; and crumpling the device (see at least paragraph 0018).
The limitation, “wherein the external influence comprises one or more selected from: shaking the device; tipping the device; flipping the device; applying pressure to the device; removing pressure from the device; applying a discontinuous or continuous force to the device; rotating the device; re-orienting the device with respect to gravity; bending the device; spinning the device; folding the device; and crumpling the device” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 7, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) discloses wherein, to provide the common, synchronized movement, at least some of the entities undergo one or more of the following types of movement in response to the external influence or force: translocation; rotation; diffusion; falling under the influence of gravity in a gaseous or liquid medium; floating in a gaseous or liquid medium (the microscopic elements can transition by way of rotation, sedimentation or flotation of the element; displacement within the element; or any combination thereof; see at least paragraph 0119).
The limitation, “wherein, to provide the common, synchronized movement, at least some of the entities undergo one or more of the following types of movement in response to the external influence or force: translocation; rotation; diffusion; falling under the influence of gravity in a gaseous or liquid medium; floating in a gaseous or liquid medium” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 39, Macpherson et al. (figures 1-12) discloses a security device comprising:
an array of compartments (20), optionally arranged as an array of compartments, each containing one or more entities that each have the capacity for independent movement within the compartments (microscopic elements 21; The microscopic elements (88) may also act as lenses that deviate light so as to change, reveal or magnify a static printed device. Alternatively, complex devices may be patterned directly on the microscopic elements (88) to enhance to effect caused by their rotation, realignment or displacement (e.g. via sedimentation or flotation); see at least paragraph 0105); and
a magnifier to magnify said randomized or Brownian motion within each compartment, or a plurality of compartments, into an observable optical dynamic effect or dynamic image (The microscopic elements (88) may also act as lenses that deviate light so as to change, reveal or magnify a static printed device; see at least paragraph 0105).
The limitation, “, each containing one or more entities that each have the capacity for independent movement within the compartments, magnify said randomized or Brownian motion within each compartment, or a plurality of compartments, into an observable optical dynamic effect or dynamic image” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 58, Macpherson et al. (figures 1-12) discloses a document or device comprising, as a security or authentication feature, one or more device according to claim 1 (see at least abstract).
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 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.
Claims 12-18, 20-21, 27-28, 31, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macpherson et al. (US 2017/0368865) in view of Holmes (US 2013/0038942).
Regarding claim 12, Macpherson et al. discloses he most basic Level 1 security devices available on bank notes can include substrate specific tactility, ink relief associated with intaglio printing, watermarks, presence of transparent windows, see-through registration devices, and micro printing (see at least paragraph 0003). However, Macpherson et al. is silent regarding a moiré magnification device. Holmes teaches a moiré magnification device (see at least abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by Holmes in order to achieve a moire magnification device such as a security device, for example for use on security documents and other articles of value such as banknotes, cheques, passports, identity cards, certificates of authenticity, fiscal stamps and other documents for securing value or personal identity. Therefore, Macpherson et al. as modified by Holmes teaches the device of claim 1, which is a moiré magnification device, comprising: as the image generator, an array of microlenses or micromirrors; as the array of compartments, a 2-dimensional array of microchambers in association with the array of microlenses; wherein the microlenses and microchambers are arranged such that the array of microlenses or micromirrors generate a moiré magnified image of at least a portion of selected microchambers and/or their at least a portion of their contents, as the observable image (The image (530) of the cuvette (520) in the mirror provides a mean for the simultaneous observation of the bottom and top of the liquid solution (500); see at least paragraph 0130; figure 16).
The limitation, “wherein the microlenses and microchambers are arranged such that the array of microlenses or micromirrors generate a moiré magnified image of at least a portion of selected microchambers and/or their at least a portion of their contents, as the observable image” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 13, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) discloses wherein each microchamber is filled with a composition comprising: (i) a liquid, such that the liquid is sealed into each microchamber (16B); and (ii) at least one entity (21) immersed in the liquid within at least a majority of the microchambers, the at least one entity insoluble or immiscible in the liquid, the at least one entity freely movable by rotation and/or translocation within the liquid when the device is subjected to an external influence or force.
The limitation, “the at least one entity insoluble or immiscible in the liquid, the at least one entity freely movable by rotation and/or translocation within the liquid when the device is subjected to an external influence or force” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 14, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) as modified by Holmes teaches wherein the array of microchambers comprises an area of adjacent microchambers each filled with the same or substantially the same compositions compared to other microchambers in said area (figure 7A), so that when the device is subjected to the external influence or force, the compositions within the adjacent microchambers within said area react within their respective microchambers in a uniform or substantially uniform manner in terms of movement of the entities they contain, such that the collective movement of the entities within the microchambers of the area forms at least a part of the moiré magnified image (The microscopic elements (88) may also act as lenses that deviate light so as to change, reveal or magnify a static printed device. Alternatively, complex devices may be patterned directly on the microscopic elements (88) to enhance to effect caused by their rotation, realignment or displacement (e.g. via sedimentation or flotation); see at least paragraph 0105).
The limitation, “wherein the external influence comprises one or more selected from: shaking the device; tipping the device; flipping the device; applying pressure to the device; removing pressure from the device; applying a discontinuous or continuous force to the device; rotating the device; re-orienting the device with respect to gravity; bending the device; spinning the device; folding the device; and crumpling the device” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 15, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) discloses wherein at least some of the entities are freely movable within and through the liquid within which it is immersed, by dynamic displacement of the liquid, when the device is subjected to an external influence that is an external force (microscopic elements 21; The microscopic elements (88) may also act as lenses that deviate light so as to change, reveal or magnify a static printed device. Alternatively, complex devices may be patterned directly on the microscopic elements (88) to enhance to effect caused by their rotation, realignment or displacement (e.g. via sedimentation or flotation); see at least paragraph 0105).
The limitation, “wherein at least some of the entities are freely movable within and through the liquid within which it is immersed, by dynamic displacement of the liquid, when the device is subjected to an external influence that is an external force” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 16, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) discloses wherein the array of microchambers comprises an area of adjacent microchambers each filled with the same or substantially the same compositions compared to other microchambers in said area, so that when the device is subjected to the external influence or force the compositions within the adjacent microchambers within said area react in a uniform or substantially uniform manner in terms of translating movement of the entities they contain and/or the resulting dynamic displacement of the liquid caused by translating movement of the entities they contain, such that the collective translating movement and/or the dynamic displacement forms at least a part of the moiré magnified image (figure 7A; The microscopic elements (88) may also act as lenses that deviate light so as to change, reveal or magnify a static printed device. Alternatively, complex devices may be patterned directly on the microscopic elements (88) to enhance to effect caused by their rotation, realignment or displacement (e.g. via sedimentation or flotation); see at least paragraph 0105).
The limitation, “so that when the device is subjected to the external influence or force the compositions within the adjacent microchambers within said area react in a uniform or substantially uniform manner in terms of translating movement of the entities they contain and/or the resulting dynamic displacement of the liquid caused by translating movement of the entities they contain, such that the collective translating movement and/or the dynamic displacement forms at least a part of the moiré magnified image” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 17, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) discloses wherein at least some of the entities, or at least a portion of at least some of the entities, have a density that is different compared to the density of the liquid within which it is immersed (a portion or all of the microscopic elements have an average density that is unequal with a density of the fluid; see at least paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 18, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) discloses wherein the microlenses are convex microlenses, or concave micromirrors, each with an average diameter of less than 200 μm or less than 60 μm (one can use microscopic elements that have an average diameter or size between 0.1 μm-100 μm, or between 0.1 μm-50 μm, or between 0.1 μm-10 μm, as long as the size of the microscopic element is less than the thickness of the security device; see at least paragraph 0121).
The limitation, “wherein the external influence comprises one or more selected from: shaking the device; tipping the device; flipping the device; applying pressure to the device; removing pressure from the device; applying a discontinuous or continuous force to the device; rotating the device; re-orienting the device with respect to gravity; bending the device; spinning the device; folding the device; and crumpling the device” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 20, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) discloses wherein at least some of the entities each have an overall average density that is greater than the density of the fluid within which they are immersed, such that they have a tendency to sink and/or to sediment within the microchambers under the force of gravity (a portion or all of the microscopic elements have an average density that is unequal with a density of the fluid; see at least paragraph 0024).
The limitation, “wherein at least some of the entities each have an overall average density that is greater than the density of the fluid within which they are immersed, such that they have a tendency to sink and/or to sediment within the microchambers under the force of gravity” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 27, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) discloses at least some entities each having an overall average density that is greater than the density of the liquid within which they are immersed, such that they have a tendency to sink and/or to sediment within the microchambers under the force of gravity, and also comprising entities each having an overall average density that is less than the density of the liquid within which they are immersed, such that they have a tendency to float within the microchambers under the force of gravity (a portion or all of the microscopic elements have an average density that is unequal with a density of the fluid; see at least paragraph 0024).
The limitation, “at least some entities each having an overall average density that is greater than the density of the liquid within which they are immersed, such that they have a tendency to sink and/or to sediment within the microchambers under the force of gravity, and also comprising entities each having an overall average density that is less than the density of the liquid within which they are immersed, such that they have a tendency to float within the microchambers under the force of gravity” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 28, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) discloses wherein at least some of the microchambers comprise one or more of the following features or configurations: cuboid microchambers; hexagonal prism microchambers spherical or elliptical microchambers; asymmetrical microchambers; microchambers comprising at least some curved walls; microchambers with an hour-glass configuration; microchambers with sloped walls; and microchambers with walls comprising surface content or relief. microchambers having walls arranged in a distinctive pattern or shape (figure 7A).
Regarding claim 31, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) as modified by Holmes teaches wherein at least some of the microchambers comprise walls with surface content or relief, wherein the surface content or relief is visible as part of the moiré magnified image when the entities within the microchambers to arrange themselves with respect to the surface content or relief following exposure of the device to an external influence or force (the interaction of microscopic elements (88) with the sidewalls of the device can be tuned to create various effects. For example, this interaction can be such that only strong acceleration, (e.g. by shaking vigorously) can dislodge the microscopic elements (88) from the sidewall and allow them to rotate so as to create the dynamic effect of the security device (100); see at least paragraph 0105).
The limitation, “wherein at least some of the microchambers comprise walls with surface content or relief, wherein the surface content or relief is visible as part of the moiré magnified image when the entities within the microchambers to arrange themselves with respect to the surface content or relief following exposure of the device to an external influence or force” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 35, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) discloses wherein the relative pitches and/or angles of the microlenses relative to the microchambers within at least some portions of the device, provide a moiré magnified image in which the movement of the entities and/or the dynamic displacement of the liquid within the microchambers is observed to progress non-parallel with the force of gravity, or opposite to the force of gravity, such that the movement and/or the dynamic displacement appears to defy gravity (After the end of the reorientation (at T>T.sub.1), in FIG. 6C, the microscopic elements are still in a state of mechanical non-equilibrium and thus rotate or realign in the presence of gravity, in order to eventually re-establish a state of substantial mechanical equilibrium; see at least paragraph 0101).
The limitation, “wherein the relative pitches and/or angles of the microlenses relative to the microchambers within at least some portions of the device, provide a moiré magnified image in which the movement of the entities and/or the dynamic displacement of the liquid within the microchambers is observed to progress non-parallel with the force of gravity, or opposite to the force of gravity, such that the movement and/or the dynamic displacement appears to defy gravity” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 38, Macpherson et al. (figures 8-10) discloses wherein the relative pitches and/or angles of the microlenses as arranged relative to the microchambers within at least some portions of the device permit the magnification and/or rotation of the image to differ locally in the device to alter the virtual image and/or the perceived displacement speed and/or direction of displacement of the entities (After the end of the reorientation (at T>T.sub.1), in FIG. 6C, the microscopic elements are still in a state of mechanical non-equilibrium and thus rotate or realign in the presence of gravity, in order to eventually re-establish a state of substantial mechanical equilibrium; see at least paragraph 0101).
The limitation, “wherein the relative pitches and/or angles of the microlenses as arranged relative to the microchambers within at least some portions of the device permit the magnification and/or rotation of the image to differ locally in the device to alter the virtual image and/or the perceived displacement speed and/or direction of displacement of the entities” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sung et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights