Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/838,604

METHOD FOR AUTHENTICATING AND/OR IDENTIFYING AND/OR TRACING AN OBJECT, IDENTIFICATION ELEMENT AND USE OF SUCH AN IDENTIFICATION ELEMENT FOR SAID METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 14, 2024
Examiner
HESS, DANIEL A
Art Unit
2876
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Particular Materials S R L
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
998 granted / 1240 resolved
+12.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
1259
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
53.8%
+13.8% vs TC avg
§102
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§112
11.0%
-29.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1240 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2008/0156654). Re claim 1: Regarding the first step, Wang et al. teaches: “[0028] Examples and implementations of nanostructures in this application use a single segment of an alloy of two or more different metal elements to provide a unique identification code based on the composition of the alloy. The code can be, for example, a combination of (1) the number of the two or more different metal elements in the alloy and (2) relative concentrations of the two or more different metal elements in the alloy. The two or more different metal elements are not spatially separated into different segments and are spatially mixed in form of the alloy within the same segment. The encoding for the identification code is based on the composition of the alloy and is not based on any spatial difference caused by different segments. Therefore, nanostructures in this application are compositionally encoded in a single segment of the alloy. The encoding capacity of such alloy nanostructures is sufficiently large for many applications and the total number of different codes is n.sup.m-1, where n is the number of the two or more different metal elements in the alloy and m is the number of detectable different relative concentrations in each of the two or more different metal elements in the alloy. Hence, thousands of encoding patterns can be achieved by using five or six different metals in the alloy with four or five different relative concentrations of the metals in the alloy.” Thus, a code is defined based on the concentration of different materials comprising the code. The second step is met because the code is used to tag objects. See for example claim 1 of Wang et al. The third step is met via a means of detecting the code which was defined/created in accordance with the first step where difference concentrations are used. That code is detected as discussed at para 0031 and 0032 where Wang et al. teaches: “[0031] For voltammetry readout, the metals should be selected to have distinguishable voltammetric signature signals. For an optical readout based on the optical spectral properties of the metal elements, the metals should be selected to have distinguishable optical spectral signals. The X-ray fluorescence (XRF) detection is an example of the optical readout and the metals should be selected to have distinguishable XRF peaks. Metals that can be electroplated or alloyed to form a desired alloy for a compositionally encoded alloy can be used. Examples of suitable metals for compositionally encoded alloy nanostructures in some applications include but are not limited to Bi, Sb, Pb, Sn, Tl, In, Ga, Cd, Zn, Au, Ag, Cu, Ni, Co, Te and Se. In addition to readout considerations, other considerations may also be included in selection of the two or more metals for a compositionally encoded alloy. For example, the magnetic property of the compositionally encoded alloy, such as a Co--Ni--Cu alloy, may be considered to facilitate magnetic separation of the compositionally encoded nanostructures (e.g., nanowires) during the fabrication process. For another example, the alloy composition may be selected to allow for attachment to another structure such as a molecule or a metal. [0032] The readout of such a compositionally encoded tag can include stimulating or exciting an identification tag containing compositionally encoded alloy nanostructures to produce a signal, measuring the signal from the alloy nanostructures to extract information on the predetermined relative concentrations of the alloy; and using a combination of (1) the predetermined relative concentrations of the two or more metal elements, and (2) a number of the two or more metal elements as an identification code to identify an object associated with the identification tag. As a specific example, an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) readout uses X-ray to stimulate the identification tag containing compositionally encoded alloy nanostructures and the XRF signal produced by the compositionally encoded alloy nanostructures under the X-ray excitation is measured to read the code. In a voltammetry readout, the identification tag containing compositionally encoded alloy nanostructures is dissolved in a solution and an electrical voltage is applied through the solution to electrochemically stimulate and read the encoded alloy nanostructures. The readout of compositionally encoded alloy nanostructures can be implemented based on various material characterization technologies including but not limited to optical readout technologies and electrochemical readout technologies. Some readout examples are Energy Dispersive X-Ray Microanalysis/Spectroscopy, Electron Backscatter Diffraction detection, Micro X-Ray Fluorescence Detection, Raman Fluorescence Spectroscopy, Raman Flame Spectroscopy, Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry Detection, Linear Sweep Voltammetry detection, Pulse Voltammetry detection, Square Wave Voltammetry detection, and solid-state chronopotentiometric measurement. A readout technology for a compositionally encoded tag can be a destructive readout where the tag is destroyed and can be read once. A voltammetry readout is a destructive readout in which the tag is dissolved in a solution in order to conduct voltametric measurements. A readout technology for a compositionally encoded tag can also be a non-destructive readout where the compositionally encoded tag is preserved after each readout and can be read multiple times. The XRF readout and the solid-state chronopotentiometric readout are two examples for a non-destructive readout.” Re claim 2: The identification element can be a nanoparticle. See for example paragraphs 0003, 0004, 0005, 0006, 0029 and 0034 etc. Re claim 3: Nanoparticles are extraordinarily tiny of course. To handle the nanoparticles in order to apply them to objects, they would have to be carried in a material. That carrier material could reasonably be a powder or a paste. See: [0025] FIG. 12 shows measured XRF signatures of alloy nanowires incorporated within inks or plastics. (A) Nanowire XRF signatures recorded with the nanowires (i) embedded in the membrane template or (ii) dispersed within an ink dispensed on a white printing paper. An ink, as per para 0025 above, can be broadly considered to be a kind of paste. Re claim 4: Many of the elements recited as the basis for the nanoparticles are listed at paragraphs 0038 to 0046. Re claim 5: See Wang et al. paragraphs 0038 to 0046. Re claims 6 and 7: A code would be digital and could be expressible as a numeric code, just as any bits of data are expressible as numbers. Re claims 8-10: Nanoparticles are extraordinarily tiny of course. To handle the nanoparticles in order to apply them to objects, they would have to be carried in a material. Re claim 11: Binders are discussed at para 0070: [0070] FIGS. 14A, 14B and 14C show specific examples of multi-segment nanostructures based on the designs in FIGS. 13A and 13B. FIG. 14A shows that a compositionally encoded alloy nanostructure 1310 is attached to a magnetic nanostructure 1410 such as an alloy of Ni, Co and Cu to allow for magnetic separation of the multi-segment nanostructure. FIG. 14B shows a multi-segment nanostructure with a compositionally encoded alloy nanostructure 1310, a binder nanostructure 1420 and a molecule or molecular cluster 1430 attached to the binder nanostructure 1420. The binder nanostructure 1420 is formed between the molecule or molecular cluster 1430 and compositionally encoded alloy nanostructure 1310 as a binder to bind the structures 1310 and 1430 together. For example, one common bonder material for the binder nanostructure 1420 is gold to which a thiolated DNA, a protein, an antibody or other molecular structure can be attached. FIG. 14C shows another example of a multi-segment nanostructure that combines the segments in FIGS. 14A and 14B to provide both biochemical and magnetic functions. Re claim 12: [0025] FIG. 12 shows measured XRF signatures of alloy nanowires incorporated within inks or plastics. (A) Nanowire XRF signatures recorded with the nanowires (i) embedded in the membrane template or (ii) dispersed within an ink dispensed on a white printing paper. Re claim 13: Wang et al. makes over a hundred refences to electroplating. That is a surface treatment of a galvanic type. Re claim 14: See the above discussion of galvanic plating. Re claim 15: Spectroscopy is discussed in Wang et al.: “[0032] The readout of such a compositionally encoded tag can include stimulating or exciting an identification tag containing compositionally encoded alloy nanostructures to produce a signal, measuring the signal from the alloy nanostructures to extract information on the predetermined relative concentrations of the alloy; and using a combination of (1) the predetermined relative concentrations of the two or more metal elements, and (2) a number of the two or more metal elements as an identification code to identify an object associated with the identification tag. As a specific example, an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) readout uses X-ray to stimulate the identification tag containing compositionally encoded alloy nanostructures and the XRF signal produced by the compositionally encoded alloy nanostructures under the X-ray excitation is measured to read the code. In a voltammetry readout, the identification tag containing compositionally encoded alloy nanostructures is dissolved in a solution and an electrical voltage is applied through the solution to electrochemically stimulate and read the encoded alloy nanostructures. The readout of compositionally encoded alloy nanostructures can be implemented based on various material characterization technologies including but not limited to optical readout technologies and electrochemical readout technologies. Some readout examples are Energy Dispersive X-Ray Microanalysis/Spectroscopy, Electron Backscatter Diffraction detection, Micro X-Ray Fluorescence Detection, Raman Fluorescence Spectroscopy, Raman Flame Spectroscopy, Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry Detection, Linear Sweep Voltammetry detection, Pulse Voltammetry detection, Square Wave Voltammetry detection, and solid-state chronopotentiometric measurement. A readout technology for a compositionally encoded tag can be a destructive readout where the tag is destroyed and can be read once. A voltammetry readout is a destructive readout in which the tag is dissolved in a solution in order to conduct voltametric measurements. A readout technology for a compositionally encoded tag can also be a non-destructive readout where the compositionally encoded tag is preserved after each readout and can be read multiple times. The XRF readout and the solid-state chronopotentiometric readout are two examples for a non-destructive readout.” Re claims 16-18: The nanostructure-based code of Wang et al. is understood to be attachable to any generic object. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 AM to 5 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, Michael G. Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. 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. /DANIEL A HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602556
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING A VALID STATE OF MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597755
ELECTRONICALLY-CONTROLLED OPTICAL FEEDBACK METHODS FOR LASER LINEWIDTH REDUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596906
Device and Method for Multiple Identity Tags Coupled to a Single Antenna or Single Antenna Array
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592537
FIBER FOR OPTICAL POWER AMPLIFICATION AND/OR OPTICAL POWER GENERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590979
ANALYZER HAVING AUTOMATIC TEST TYPE SENSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+6.9%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1240 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month