DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of IDS filed on 07/25/2024.
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2023/052700 filed on 02/03/2023.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moorlag et al. (US 2017/0284876).
Re Claims 1 and 5: Moorlag et al. teaches 3D printed conductive compositions anticipating or indicating structural compromise, which includes comprises at least one conductor {herein conductive composite segment 123} of a second conductive material integrated into the first material (see ¶ 24+), the conductor connecting at least two accessible terminals {herein electrodes 132 & 134} and having a measurable characteristic resistance between the terminals (¶ 36+).
Re Claim 2: Moorlag et al. teaches device and method, wherein at least one of the terminals is common to two conductors {herein multiple segments} (see fig.# 7; 85-86+).
Re Claim 3: Moorlag et al. teaches device and method, wherein the second material comprises a matrix of thermoplastic material {herein matrix material 125} and a filler in the form of conductive particles (27+, 35-40+).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moorlag et al. (US 2017/0284876) in view of Bernardin et al. (US 11,511,922).
The teachings of Moorlag et al. have been discussed above. Moorlag et al. discloses a measured resistance value {herein resistance can then be measured across the length of the conductive composite segment. The dimensions of the conductive composite segment and the measured value for R can then be used to calculate bulk conductivity (σ) of the composite} (see 29+).
Moorlag et al. fails to specifically teach that the resistance value is greater than 1 kΩ.
Bernardin et al. teaches additively manufactured tamper evident container, wherein the resistance value is greater than 1 kΩ (col.8, lines 10-67+; col.10, lines 55+).
In view of Bernardin et al.’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ into the teachings of Moorlag et al. that the resistance value is greater than 1 kΩ so as to detect any tampering and/or falsification of the article.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to specifically teach a batch of objects is manufactured, and at least one of the parameters from a group comprising the course of the conductor, the cross-section of the conductor over at least part of the course, the material of the conductor, and the number of conductor production passes, is modified, from one object to another, for at least one of the conductors so as to modify the resistance value of said conductor. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations in the claimed invention were not shown by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rahimizad et al. (US 2021/0174378) teaches digital fingerprinting.
Holzmann et al. (US 2013/0015109) teaches filter with electrical signature anti-counterfeiting feature.
Kaiserman et al. (US 2017/0036838) teaches apparatus and method for identifying products.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWYN LABAZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Mr. STEVE PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/EDWYN LABAZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights