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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/03/2024, 08/28/2025, and 05/26/2026 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: "a micro-image-text area" in claim 6 is not stated anywhere in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
a single-layer metal coating
a multi-layer metal coating
a coating formed by an absorption layer, a low-refractive index dielectric layer and a reflective film layer
a high-refractive index dielectric layer coating
a multi-dielectric-layer coating formed by a first high-refractive-index dielectric layer, the lower-refractive-index layer and a second high-refractive-index layer stacked in sequence
a coating formed by the absorption layer, a high-refractive-index dielectric layer and the reflective film layer stacked in sequence
a microstructure arranged in the micro graphic-text groove, wherein the microstructure is comprised of a one-dimensional submicron structure, a two-dimensional submicron structure and an interference structural color
a first color functional layer arranged in the micro graphic-text groove
a second color functional layer arranged on a surface of the reflecting curved mirror
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: examiner suggests "the plurality of reflecting curved mirrors". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 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.
Regarding independent claim 1, the entire claim raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this claim should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding the limitation “a reflecting curved mirror, a plurality of reflecting curved mirrors are provided, and the plurality of reflecting curved mirrors are arranged”, it is unclear whether the reflecting curved mirror is one of the plurality of reflecting curved mirrors or if there is one reflecting curved mirror that is separate from the plurality of reflecting curved mirrors, in which case it is further unclear if each subsequent mention of “the reflecting curved mirror” refers to one of the plurality of reflecting curved mirrors or a separate reflecting curved mirror.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “wherein the plurality of reflecting curved mirrors are arranged”. Examiner also assumes “one of the plurality of reflecting curved mirrors” for all subsequent mentions of “the reflecting curved mirror” in claim 1 and all dependent claims.
Regarding the limitation “a micro graphic-text structure, at least part of the plurality of reflecting curved mirrors is provided with”, examiner suggests “a micro graphic-text structure, wherein at least part of the plurality of reflecting curved mirrors is provided with”.
Regarding the limitation “the reflecting curved mirror displays as a three-dimensional pattern with depth of field after sampling and synthesizing with the micro graphic-text structure having a coupling effect with it”, it is unclear what the limitation means. It is unclear what is meant by “sampling and synthesizing” and whether it is the mirror “sampling and synthesizing” with the micro graphic-text structure by itself, which is unclear, or if it means something involving a reflection of light incident on the mirror with the micro graphic-text structure which causes a three-dimensional pattern to be displayed.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes this limitation is met by any similar device comprising a plurality of reflecting curved mirrors with a micro graphic-text structure, wherein light reflects off of the device to cause a three-dimensional pattern to be displayed.
Claims 2-17 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Regarding claims 4-5, the limitation “densities of micro graphic-text grooves in the plurality of reflecting curved mirrors” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
The wording of claim 1 implies there is a single micro graphic-text structure comprised of a plurality of micro graphic-text areas throughout the element. Claim 4 further states this micro graphic-text structure is a micro graphic-text groove, implying that the entire micro graphic-text structure spanning the entire element is considered, meaning there is only one. However, claim 5 states “densities of micro graphic-text grooves” indicating there are multiple micro graphic-text grooves.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “the micro graphic-text structure comprises a plurality of micro graphic-text grooves, and at least part of one of the plurality of s in the plurality of s” in claim 4.
Claims 5 and 16-17 are dependent on claim 4 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation the limitation “a micro-image-text area” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if “a micro-image-text area” refers to a micro graphic-text area or something else, and there is no support in the specification to indicate what it is.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “a micro-image-text area” is ““a micro graphic-text area”.
Regarding claim 15, the entire claim raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this claim should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the claim limitations.
The claim states that the reflecting layer comprises one or more of the following, then lists multiple options that the reflecting layer could be. Given that it could be any one of these and does not have to include any of the other options, the claim raises clarity issues in multiple locations:
“the low-refractive-index dielectric layer” in line 9 of the claim raises uncertainty as to whether “a multi-dielectric-layer coating formed by a first high-refractive-index dielectric layer, the low-refractive-index dielectric layer and a second high-refractive- index dielectric layer stacked in sequence” must be used in combination with “a coating formed by an absorption layer, a low-refractive-index dielectric layer and a reflective film layer” or whether it can be used on its own
“the absorption layer” in line 11 and “the reflective film layer” in line 12 of the claim raises uncertainty as to whether “a coating formed by the absorption layer, a high-refractive-index dielectric layer and the reflective film layer stacked in sequence” must be used in combination with “a coating formed by an absorption layer, a low-refractive-index dielectric layer and a reflective film layer” or whether it can be used on its own
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes each option can be used on its own, that is “a low-refractive-index dielectric layer” in line 9, “an absorption layer” in line 11, and “a reflective film layer” in line 12.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “a microstructure, the microstructure is arranged in the micro graphic-text groove, and the microstructure comprises one of a one-dimensional submicron structure, a two-dimensional submicron structure and an interference structural color” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
Since a one-dimensional submicron structure is not shown, a two-dimensional submicron structure is not shown, and an interference structural color is not shown, it is unclear what these are. Additionally regarding “a two-dimensional submicron structure and an interference structural color” it is unclear if comprising “one of” refers to both a two-dimensional submicron structure and an interference structural color as a single option, or if they each are their own option.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “a two-dimensional submicron structure, and an interference structural color” and that the limitation is met by any microstructure.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the first color functional layer comprises one of a single-layer coating, a multi-layer coating, an ink, a pigment and a dye; and/or the second color functional layer comprises one of the single-layer coating, the multi-layer coating, the ink, the pigment and the dye” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
The claim states there is first color functional layer comprising a single-layer coating, a multi-layer coating, an ink, a pigment and a dye, that the first color functional layer is located in the micro graphic-text groove. The claim then states the second color functional layer, located elsewhere, comprises one of the single-layer coating, the multi-layer coating, the ink, the pigment and the dye. However, due to “and/or” those elements are not required by the first functional layer, causing a lack of antecedent basis for the single-layer coating, the multi-layer coating, the ink, the pigment and the dye. Further, even if both layers comprising one of those options is required, then only the one option that is also required by the first functional layer would have antecedent basis and the other options would still lack antecedent basis. It is further unclear if the same option would be then required in the second color functional layer. Additionally regarding “a pigment and a dye” it is unclear if comprising “one of” refers to both a pigment and a dye as a single option, or if they each are their own option.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “the first color functional layer and/or the second functional layer each comprises one of a single-layer coating, a multi-layer coating, an ink, a pigment, and a dye
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cape et al. (US 20160101643 A1), hereinafter Cape.
Regarding independent claim 1, Cape discloses an anti-counterfeiting element, comprising:
a substrate (¶0013);
a reflecting curved mirror (104/107; Figs. 1-3; ¶0057) , a plurality of reflecting curved mirrors are provided (104/107; Fig. 3; ¶0057), and the plurality of reflecting curved mirrors (104/107) are arranged on a side surface of the substrate in an array (¶0013);
a micro graphic-text structure (108; Figs. 2-3), at least part of the plurality of reflecting curved mirrors (104/107) is provided with the independent micro graphic-text structure (108), the micro graphic-text structure is divided into a plurality of micro graphic-text areas from a central position to an edge position of the substrate (Fig. 3), using a period of the reflecting curved mirror (104/107) as a unit (this is just a definition; Fig. 3); and
the reflecting curved mirror (104/107) displays as a three-dimensional pattern (¶0046, ¶0224) with depth of field after sampling and synthesizing with the micro graphic-text structure (108) having a coupling effect with it (Fig. 3C; ¶0057), and the three-dimensional pattern at least partially suspends on a side, away from the substrate, of the reflecting curved mirror (104/107) (Fig. 3C; ¶0057); and a minimum unit radian of each reflecting curved mirror (104/107) having the micro graphic-text structure (108) corresponds to a projection angle (this is just a definition; Fig. 3C; ¶0057), so that only a side surface of the three-dimensional pattern is able to be seen at an angle on the side, away from the substrate, of the reflecting curved mirror (104/107) (implicit that given the structure of the device of Cape is the same as that of the instant application, it must perform the same function and display the pattern similarly; Fig. 3C; ¶0057).
Cape does not explicitly disclose a duty ratio of a micro graphic-text area at the central position of the substrate is larger than a duty ratio of a micro graphic-text area at the edge position of the substrate. However, the arrangement of the micro graphic-text areas, i.e. the duty ratio configuration, only affects what the image is, and would be different according to what the desired image is. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). One would be motivated to have the duty ratio at the central position of the substrate be larger than the duty ratio at the edge position of the substrate for the purpose of achieving the desired image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cape to have the duty ratio at the central position of the substrate be larger than the duty ratio at the edge position of the substrate for the purpose of achieving the desired image and since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Cape discloses the anti-counterfeiting element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Cape further discloses wherein the micro graphic-text structure is arranged in a periodic array (Figs. 4-6) to be displayed as three-dimensional patterns with different depths of field; or the micro graphic-text structure (108) is arranged in a nonperiodic array (Fig. 3) to be displayed as three-dimensional patterns with continuous depth of field (Fig. 12; ¶0057).
Regarding claim 4, Cape discloses the anti-counterfeiting element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Cape further discloses the micro graphic-text structure (108) is a micro graphic-text groove (Fig. 3; ¶0056-¶0057), and at least part of the micro graphic-text groove (108) in each reflecting curved mirror (104/107) penetrates through a top surface and a bottom surface of the reflecting curved mirror (104/107) (Fig. 3; ¶0056-¶0057).
Regarding claim 6, Cape discloses the anti-counterfeiting element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Cape further discloses wherein when a duty ratio of a micro-image-text area is a maximum value, a projection area of the three-dimensional pattern displayed by the micro graphic-text area on the substrate is a minimum (implicit that given the structure of the device of Cape is the same as that of the instant application, it must perform the same function and display the pattern similarly; Fig. 3C; ¶0057) , and the three-dimensional pattern is vertically displayed on the side, away from the substrate, of the reflecting curved mirror (104/107) (Fig. 3C; ¶0057).
Regarding claim 7, Cape discloses the anti-counterfeiting element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Cape further discloses wherein a side view of the three-dimensional pattern vertically arranged is able to be seen when observed from part of angles of a side, having the reflecting curved mirror (104/107), of the substrate (inherent given a three-dimensional pattern).
Regarding claim 12, Cape discloses the anti-counterfeiting element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Cape further discloses the plurality of reflecting curved mirror (104/107) are all convex mirrors or concave mirrors (Figs. 1-3; ¶0083).
Regarding claim 13, Cape discloses the anti-counterfeiting element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Cape further discloses wherein at least part of the plurality of reflecting curved mirrors (104/107) is arranged in a periodic array (Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 14, Cape discloses the anti-counterfeiting element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Cape further discloses the anti-counterfeiting element further comprises a reflecting layer (¶0035, ¶0091-¶0098, ¶0178, ¶0194), the reflecting layer is arranged on a side surface, away from the substrate, of the reflecting curved mirror (104/107) (¶0035, ¶0091-¶0098, ¶0178, ¶0194).
Regarding claim 15, Cape discloses the anti-counterfeiting element according to claim 14, as set forth above. Cape further discloses the reflecting layer comprises one or more of the following:
a single-layer metal coating (¶0194);
a multi-layer metal coating (¶0194);
a coating formed by an absorption layer, a low-refractive-index dielectric layer and a reflective film layer;
a high-refractive-index dielectric layer coating;
a multi-dielectric-layer coating formed by a first high-refractive-index dielectric layer, the low-refractive-index dielectric layer and a second high-refractive- index dielectric layer stacked in sequence;
a coating formed by the absorption layer, a high-refractive-index dielectric layer and the reflective film layer stacked in sequence.
Regarding claim 16, Cape discloses the anti-counterfeiting element according to claim 4, as set forth above. Cape further discloses the anti-counterfeiting element further comprises a microstructure (Fig. 3; ¶0054-¶0057), the microstructure is arranged in the micro graphic-text groove (the groove 108 can also be considered a microstructure given that 107 is a microstructure), and the microstructure comprises one of a one-dimensional submicron structure, a two-dimensional submicron structure (Fig. 3) and an interference structural color.
Regarding claim 17, Cape discloses the anti-counterfeiting element according to claim 4, as set forth above. Cape further discloses the anti-counterfeiting element further comprises a first color functional layer (¶0094 – “in or on the image relief microstructures, in or on the surface on or within which the image relief microstructures are formed, or a combination thereof”) and a second color functional layer (¶0094), the first color functional layer is arranged in the micro graphic-text groove (¶0094 states the layer can be on the surface on which the image relief microstructures are formed, therefore it would be in the groove), the second color functional layer is arranged on a surface of the reflecting curved mirror (¶0094 states the layer can be on the image relief microstructure),
the first color functional layer comprises one of a single-layer coating, a multi-layer coating, an ink, a pigment and a dye (¶0094); and/or
the second color functional layer comprises one of the single-layer coating, the multi-layer coating, the ink, the pigment and the dye (¶0094).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, and 8-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the anti-counterfeiting element as claimed. Specifically, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of an anti-counterfeiting element specifically including, as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations, duty ratios of the plurality of micro graphic-text areas are gradually decreased from the central position to the edge position of the substrate.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the anti-counterfeiting element as claimed. Specifically, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of an anti-counterfeiting element specifically including, as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations, densities of micro graphic-text grooves in the plurality of reflecting curved mirrors are gradually decreased from the central position to the edge position of the substrate.
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the anti-counterfeiting element as claimed. Specifically, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of an anti-counterfeiting element specifically including, as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations, a first micro graphic-text area, a second micro graphic-text area and a third micro graphic-text area in sequence from the central position to the edge position of the substrate, and a duty ratio is gradually decreased from the first micro graphic-text area to the third micro graphic-text area. Claims 9-11 are dependent on claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cui et al. (US 20250217617 A1), Cui et al. (US 20240092114 A1), and Zhang et al. (US 20190315148 A1) discloses similar anti-counterfeiting elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 5th, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights