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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
feature substance MS, disclosed in paragraph 0064 of the Specification.
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. 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 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “effected” should be corrected to “affected”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“capture apparatus” in claim 27.
“test apparatus” in claim 27.
“irradiation device” in claims 29 & 30.
“detector device” in claims 29 & 30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 17-18, 20, and 22 is 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 claim 17, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as “whether a difference between two measured intensities of the first optical radiation lies below a predefined first threshold value”.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "- e.g.," renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as “the first semifinished product is tested whether the influence of contaminants on the first optical radiation is acceptably small”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "in regard to whether the influence of the contaminants on the first optical radiation is acceptably small". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as "in regard to whether an influence of the contaminants on the first optical radiation is acceptably small".
The term “acceptably” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “acceptably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as "in regard to whether the influence of the contaminants on the first optical radiation is below a contaminant threshold value".
The term “similar” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as “a test is conducted to check whether the ascertained characteristic property of the feature substance corresponds to a predefined property, in particular whether the introduced and/or applied feature substance is the desired feature substance”.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the second test step is carried out". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as "a second test step is carried out".
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) 16-23, 25, and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schocher et al. (DE-102019118000-A1) hereinafter referenced as Schocher, in view of Adachi et al. (US-20190066428-A1) hereinafter referenced as Adachi.
Regarding claim 16, Schocher discloses: A method for producing value documents, in particular banknotes (Schocher: 0002), comprising the following steps:
providing at least one first semifinished product, capturing a first optical radiation emanating from the first semifinished product with at least one first sensitivity and at least one first resolution of temporal, spatial and/or spectral properties of the first optical radiation (Claim term “and/or” is interpreted as disjunctive term “or”) (Schocher: 0004: “This task is solved by a method for checking a security feature in a semi-finished product consisting of at least one paper layer…excitation radiation is directed onto the test field provided with the security feature, in which a detection device detects the emitted radiation of the security feature, in which parameters are determined from the emitted radiation and compared with parameters of the original security feature stored in a data processing device, and in which the evaluation of the detected parameters and stored parameters is output in real time before the subsequent processing step of the semi-finished product.”), and
testing the first optical radiation on the basis of a first test criterion (Schocher: 0010: “According to an advantageous embodiment of the method, the determined parameters are compared with the stored parameters, and if there is a deviation in the agreement within a predefined tolerance range, a warning message is issued, and if there is an agreement outside the defined tolerance range, a signal for a rejection is issued.”) and, if the first test criterion is satisfied, introducing and/or applying at least one feature substance into and/or onto the first semifinished product (Claim term “and/or” is interpreted as disjunctive term “or”) (Schocher: 0004: “This task is solved by a method for checking a security feature in a semi-finished product consisting of at least one paper layer, in which, after the production and removal of the semi finished product with the security feature from a production machine in a test field, or in which, before further processing of the semi-finished product in a cutting machine, a printing machine or a laminating machine,”),
Schocher does not disclose expressly: introducing and/or applying at least one feature substance into and/or onto the first semifinished product, wherein a value document or a second semifinished product usable for producing a value document is obtained in which the feature substance is invisible to the naked eye,
capturing a second optical radiation emanating from the value document or the second semifinished product with at least one second sensitivity and at least one second resolution of temporal, spatial and/or spectral properties of the second optical radiation, and testing the second optical radiation on the basis of at least one second test criterion and, if the at least one second test criterion is satisfied, releasing the value document for circulation or releasing the second semifinished product for use in the production of a value document,
wherein the first sensitivity is greater than the second sensitivity and/or the first resolution is less than the second resolution, and/or the testing of the first optical radiation with regard to the temporal, spatial and/or spectral properties of the first optical radiation is less selective than the testing of the second optical radiation with regard to the temporal, spatial and/or spectral properties of the second optical radiation (Claim term “and/or” is interpreted as disjunctive term “or”).
Adachi discloses: introducing or applying at least one feature substance into or onto the first semifinished product (Adachi: 0054: “Examples of a sheet to be a target of the present invention include printed matter (hereinafter, also referred to as pieces) including a serial number (characteristic number) printed thereon, such as banknotes (printed money), cheques, gift vouchers, bills, slips, documents of value, and card-like media, and uncut printed matter including a plurality of any of such pieces printed thereon.”), wherein a value document or a second semifinished product usable for producing a value document is obtained in which the feature substance is invisible to the naked eye (Adachi: Abstract: “The present invention provides an invisible-feature detection device capable of easily detecting a serial number with an invisible feature at low cost, a sheet recognition device, a sheet handling device, a print inspection device, and an invisible-feature detection method.”),
capturing a second optical radiation emanating from the value document or the second semifinished product with at least one second sensitivity and at least one second resolution of temporal, spatial or spectral properties of the second optical radiation (Adachi: 0058: “The print inspection device successively takes a visible light image and an infrared image of an uncut banknote sheet held on the surface of a drum of the serial number printing device, and compares the serial number portions of the visible light image and of the infrared image respectively with reference images for the visible light image and for the infrared image.”), and
testing the second optical radiation on the basis of at least one second test criterion (Adachi: 0099-0101: “ the infrared image of the uncut banknote sheet 110 as a detection target may be compared with the infrared image of the reference uncut banknote sheet 120 as a comparison target by any of the following techniques (1) to (3)… (2) The number of pixels is counted where the difference between data sets (e.g., pixel values) at the position corresponding to the detection-target area 113 including the serial number 112 printed therein is greater than a threshold value, and this count is compared with a different threshold value.”) and, if the at least one second test criterion is satisfied, releasing the value document for circulation or releasing the second semifinished product for use in the production of a value document (Adachi: 0055-0057: “In general, banknotes are printed in the form of uncut sheets of banknotes so as to print a plurality of banknotes at the same time. Before completion of the banknotes, there are steps of: printing patterns common to a plurality of banknotes; inspecting the print quality of the patterns; printing serial numbers different among the banknotes; inspecting the print quality of the serial numbers; cutting the uncut sheets into the individual banknotes; and inspecting the cut banknotes (pieces). The following describes inspection of the serial number portions according to the present invention. The present invention can be applied to both inspection of serial numbers on uncut sheets and inspection of serial numbers on pieces…The following describes the present invention taking as an example a serial number printing device for uncut sheets including a printer and an inspection device; in particular a print inspection device thereof for inspecting the print quality of the serial numbers.”),
wherein the sensitivity of UV is greater than the second sensitivity (Adachi: 0059: “The serial numbers 112 a and 112 b each absorb light having a wavelength band within at least part of the visible light range (e.g., 380 to 780 nm). The serial number 112a also absorbs light having a wavelength band within at least part of the infrared range (e.g., a wavelength band exceeding 780 nm), while the serial number 112 b transmits light within the infrared range (e.g., a wavelength band exceeding 780 nm). Thus, both the serial numbers 112 a and 112 b are visible under visible light, and the serial number 112 a is also detectable under infrared light, while the serial number 112 b is not detectable under infrared light.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the invisible feature detection device taught by Adachi into the test station for inspecting a semi-finished product disclosed by Schocher. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “Since the sheet recognition device of the present invention includes the invisible-feature detection device of the present invention, it enables easy, low-cost recognition (type determination) and/or authenticity determination of a sheet including a serial number with an invisible feature printed thereon.” (Adachi: 0040). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Schocher with Adachi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Schocher in view of Adachi discloses: The method as claimed in claim 16, wherein on the basis of the at least one first test criterion, a test is conducted to check whether an intensity of the first optical radiation is less than a predefined first threshold value or whether a difference between two measured intensities of the first optical radiation, for example two intensities at
different detection wavelengths, lies below a predefined first threshold value (Claim limitation is interpreted according to the rejection(s) of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) disclosed above) (Schocher: 0010: “According to an advantageous embodiment of the method, the determined parameters are compared with the stored parameters, and if there is a deviation in the agreement within a predefined tolerance range, a warning message is issued, and if there is an agreement outside the defined tolerance range, a signal for a rejection is issued.”).
Regarding claim 18, Schocher in view of Adachi discloses: The method as claimed in claim 16, wherein on the basis of the at least one first test criterion, in particular on the basis of the predefined first threshold value, the first semifinished product is tested in regard to contaminants, e.g. in regard to whether the influence of the contaminants on the first optical radiation is acceptably small (Claim limitation is interpreted according to the rejection(s) of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) disclosed above) (Schocher: 0010: “According to an advantageous embodiment of the method, the determined parameters are compared with the stored parameters, and if there is a deviation in the agreement within a predefined tolerance range, a warning message is issued, and if there is an agreement outside the defined tolerance range, a signal for a rejection is issued. This allows for the detection of deviations within a predefined tolerance range in the event of a less than 100% match between the recorded parameters, thus still guaranteeing the defined quality for the value or security document. If the recorded parameters are outside the predefined tolerance range, this may indicate a scrap item or trigger automatic sorting of the semi-finished product in a production line.”).
Regarding claim 19, Schocher in view of Adachi discloses: The method as claimed in claim 16, wherein on the basis of the second optical radiation, at least one characteristic property of the feature substance introduced into and/or applied onto the value document, or the second semi-finished product is ascertained (Claim term “and/or” is interpreted as disjunctive term “or”) (Adachi: 0058: “The print inspection device successively takes a visible light image and an infrared image of an uncut banknote sheet held on the surface of a drum of the serial number printing device, and compares the serial number portions of the visible light image and of the infrared image respectively with reference images for the visible light image and for the infrared image.”;
0060: “ In the present embodiment, an infrared image is used to enable easy, low-cost detection of the presence or absence of the invisible features, particularly an infrared absorption, of the serial numbers 112.”).
Regarding claim 20, Schocher in view of Adachi discloses: The method as claimed in claim 16, wherein in a first test step on the basis of the at least one second test criterion, a test is conducted to check whether the ascertained characteristic property of the feature substance corresponds to a predefined property or is at least similar thereto, in particular whether the introduced and/or applied feature substance is the desired feature substance (Claim term “and/or” is interpreted as disjunctive term “or”) (Claim limitation is interpreted according to the rejection(s) of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) disclosed above) (Adachi: 0060: “ In the present embodiment, an infrared image is used to enable easy, low-cost detection of the presence or absence of the invisible features, particularly an infrared absorption, of the serial numbers 112.”;
0099-0101: “ the infrared image of the uncut banknote sheet 110 as a detection target may be compared with the infrared image of the reference uncut banknote sheet 120 as a comparison target by any of the following techniques (1) to (3)… (2) The number of pixels is counted where the difference between data sets (e.g., pixel values) at the position corresponding to the detection-target area 113 including the serial number 112 printed therein is greater than a threshold value, and this count is compared with a different threshold value.”; Wherein the difference corresponds to the detection of feature within an infrared image).
Regarding claim 21, Schocher in view of Adachi discloses: The method as claimed in claim 16, wherein in a second test step on the basis of the at least one second test criterion, a test is conducted to check whether an intensity of the second optical radiation is greater than a predefined second threshold value and/or lies within a predefined tolerance interval, wherein on the basis of the predefined second threshold value and/or the predefined tolerance interval, in particular a test is conducted to check whether the feature substance is present in the desired amount in/on the second semi-finished product or the value document (Claim term “and/or” is interpreted as disjunctive term “or”) (Adachi: 0060: “ In the present embodiment, an infrared image is used to enable easy, low-cost detection of the presence or absence of the invisible features, particularly an infrared absorption, of the serial numbers 112.”;
0099-0101: “ the infrared image of the uncut banknote sheet 110 as a detection target may be compared with the infrared image of the reference uncut banknote sheet 120 as a comparison target by any of the following techniques (1) to (3)… (2) The number of pixels is counted where the difference between data sets (e.g., pixel values) at the position corresponding to the detection-target area 113 including the serial number 112 printed therein is greater than a threshold value, and this count is compared with a different threshold value.”; Wherein the difference corresponds to the detection of feature within an infrared image).
Regarding claim 22, Schocher in view of Adachi discloses: The method as claimed in claim 20, wherein the second test step is carried out after the first test step and/or is carried out only if the at least one second test criterion is satisfied in the first test step (Claim term “and/or” is interpreted as disjunctive term “or”) (Claim limitation is interpreted according to the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) disclosed above.) (Adachi: 0059: “In an appropriately printed uncut banknote sheet 110 , the piece faces 111 usually include different serial numbers (different sets of symbols). If the serial numbers 112 are inappropriately printed, for example, at least one serial number (at least one set of symbols) of at least one piece face 111 may be the same as at least one serial number (at least one set of symbols) of a different piece face 111 . A serial number 112 in one location (a serial number 112 a ) is printed using an infrared-absorptive ink and a serial number 112 in another location (a serial number 112 b ) is printed using an infrared-transmissive ink. The serial numbers 112 a and 112 b each absorb light having a wavelength band within at least part of the visible light range (e.g., 380 to 780 nm). The serial number 112 a also absorbs light having a wavelength band within at least part of the infrared range (e.g., a wavelength band exceeding 780 nm), while the serial number 112 b transmits light within the infrared range (e.g., a wavelength band exceeding 780 nm). Thus, both the serial numbers 112 a and 112 b are visible under visible light, and the serial number 112 a is also detectable under infrared light, while the serial number 112 b is not detectable under infrared light.”; Wherein the testing of each ink constitutes a separate test.).
Regarding claim 23, Schocher in view of Adachi discloses: The method as claimed in claim 16, wherein the captured first and/or second optical radiation are/is characteristic of at least one of the following optical properties of the first semifinished product and/or the value document or the second semifinished product: luminescence, Raman scattering, in particular surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS), and/or absorption (Claim term “and/or” is interpreted as disjunctive term “or”) (Adachi: 0059: “A serial number 112 in one location (a serial number 112 a ) is printed using an infrared-absorptive ink and a serial number 112 in another location (a serial number 112 b ) is printed using an infrared-transmissive ink. The serial numbers 112 a and 112 b each absorb light having a wavelength band within at least part of the visible light range (e.g., 380 to 780 nm). The serial number 112 a also absorbs light having a wavelength band within at least part of the infrared range (e.g., a wavelength band exceeding 780 nm), while the serial number 112 b transmits light within the infrared range (e.g., a wavelength band exceeding 780 nm). Thus, both the serial numbers 112 a and 112 b are visible under visible light, and the serial number 112 a is also detectable under infrared light, while the serial number 112 b is not detectable under infrared light.”).
Regarding claim 25, Schocher in view of Adachi discloses: The method as claimed in claim 16, wherein the first semifinished product is a value document substrate, into and/or onto which the feature substance is introduced and/or applied, in particular by means of a printing process, in order to obtain the value document (Claim term “and/or” is interpreted as disjunctive term “or”) (Schocher: 0004: “This task is solved by a method for checking a security feature in a semi-finished product consisting of at least one paper layer, in which, after the production and removal of the semi finished product with the security feature from a production machine in a test field, or in which, before further processing of the semi-finished product in a cutting machine, a printing machine or a laminating machine”)
(Adachi: 0024: “One aspect of the present invention is directed to an invisible-feature detection device configured to detect an invisible feature of a serial number printed on a sheet, the invisible-feature detection device including: a detector configured to detect the invisible feature from the sheet; a memory configured to store a reference data set; and a determiner configured: to compare a detected data set based on the invisible feature of the sheet detected by the detector with the reference data set; and to determine that the serial number with the invisible feature is printed on the sheet when a difference is present between the detected data set and the reference data set in an area corresponding to a detection-target area of the sheet, the detection-target area including the serial number printed therein, wherein the reference data set is based on a reference invisible feature detected from a reference sheet including a printed pattern at least excluding the serial number with the invisible feature.”), and/or
is a printing ink, into which the feature substance is introduced in order to obtain the second semifinished product in the form of a printing ink which contains the feature substance and by means of which a value document substrate can be printed, and/or
is a paper pulp, into which the feature substance is introduced in order to obtain the second semifinished product, in particular in the form of a value document substrate, and/or
is a polymer melt, into which the feature substance is introduced in order to obtain the second semifinished product, in particular in the form of a polymer substrate and/or a film strip, for introduction into and/or application onto a value document substrate.
Regarding claim 27, Schocher discloses: A sensor system for quality control during the production of value documents which involves at least one feature substance being introduced into and/or applied onto a first semifinished product in order to obtain a value document or a second semifinished product usable for producing a value document (Claim term “and/or” is interpreted as disjunctive term “or”) (Schocher: 0004: “This task is solved by a method for checking a security feature in a semi-finished product consisting of at least one paper layer, in which, after the production and removal of the semi finished product with the security feature from a production machine in a test field, or in which, before further processing of the semi-finished product in a cutting machine, a printing machine or a laminating machine, excitation radiation is directed onto the test field provided with the security feature, in which a detection device detects the emitted radiation of the security feature, in which parameters are determined from the emitted radiation and compared with parameters of the original security feature stored in a data processing device, and in which the evaluation of the detected parameters and stored parameters is output in real time before the subsequent processing step of the semi-finished product.”),
wherein the sensor system comprises at least one capture apparatus for capturing optical radiation and at least one test apparatus for testing the captured optical radiation and is operable in a first operating mode, wherein in the first operating mode the at least one capture apparatus captures a first optical radiation emanating from the first semifinished product with at least one first sensitivity and at least one first resolution of temporal, spatial and/or spectral properties of the first optical radiation (Claim term “and/or” is interpreted as disjunctive term “or”) (Schocher: 0004: “This task is solved by a method for checking a security feature in a semi-finished product consisting of at least one paper layer…excitation radiation is directed onto the test field provided with the security feature, in which a detection device detects the emitted radiation of the security feature, in which parameters are determined from the emitted radiation and compared with parameters of the original security feature stored in a data processing device, and in which the evaluation of the detected parameters and stored parameters is output in real time before the subsequent processing step of the semi-finished product.”), and
the at least one test apparatus tests the first optical radiation on the basis of a first test criterion and generates and/or outputs a first test signal, which is dependent on whether the first test criterion is satisfied (Schocher: 0010: “According to an advantageous embodiment of the method, the determined parameters are compared with the stored parameters, and if there is a deviation in the agreement within a predefined tolerance range, a warning message is issued, and if there is an agreement outside the defined tolerance range, a signal for a rejection is issued.”),.
Schocher does not disclose expressly: wherein the sensor system comprises at least one capture apparatus for capturing optical radiation and at least one test apparatus for testing the captured optical radiation and is operable in a first operating mode and in a second operating mode, and
in the second operating mode the at least one capture apparatus captures a second optical
radiation emanating from the value document or from the second semifinished product with at least one second sensitivity and at least one second resolution of temporal, spatial and/or spectral properties of the second optical radiation, and the at least one test apparatus tests the second optical radiation on the basis of at least one second test criterion and generates and/or outputs a second test signal, which is dependent on whether the at least one second test criterion is satisfied, and
wherein the first sensitivity is greater than the second sensitivity and/or the first resolution is less than the second resolution and/or the testing of the first optical radiation with regard to the temporal, spatial and/or spectral properties of the first optical radiation is less selective than the testing of the second optical radiation with regard to the temporal, spatial and/or spectral properties of the
second optical radiation (Claim term “and/or” is interpreted as disjunctive term “or”).
Adachi discloses: a sensor system comprising at least one capture apparatus for capturing optical radiation and at least one test apparatus for testing the captured optical radiation and is operable in a second operating mode, and
in the second operating mode the at least one capture apparatus captures a second optical
radiation emanating from the value document or from the second semifinished product with at least one second sensitivity and at least one second resolution of temporal, spatial or spectral properties of the second optical radiation (Adachi: 0058: “The print inspection device successively takes a visible light image and an infrared image of an uncut banknote sheet held on the surface of a drum of the serial number printing device, and compares the serial number portions of the visible light image and of the infrared image respectively with reference images for the visible light image and for the infrared image.”), and
the at least one test apparatus tests the second optical radiation on the basis of at least one second test criterion (Adachi: 0099-0101: “ the infrared image of the uncut banknote sheet 110 as a detection target may be compared with the infrared image of the reference uncut banknote sheet 120 as a comparison target by any of the following techniques (1) to (3)… (2) The number of pixels is counted where the difference between data sets (e.g., pixel values) at the position corresponding to the detection-target area 113 including the serial number 112 printed therein is greater than a threshold value, and this count is compared with a different threshold value.”) and generates or outputs a second test signal, which is dependent on whether the at least one second test criterion is satisfied (Adachi: 0088-0089: “Then, the controller 33 outputs a determination result from the determiner 32 to the print inspection device 100 and/or the serial number printing device which are higher-level devices. The print inspection device 100 inspects whether or not the serial numbers 112 of the uncut banknote sheet 110 are printed correctly based upon the determination result from the determiner 32.”), and
wherein the sensitivity of UV is greater than the second sensitivity (Adachi: 0059: “The serial numbers 112 a and 112 b each absorb light having a wavelength band within at least part of the visible light range (e.g., 380 to 780 nm). The serial number 112a also absorbs light having a wavelength band within at least part of the infrared range (e.g., a wavelength band exceeding 780 nm), while the serial number 112 b transmits light within the infrared range (e.g., a wavelength band exceeding 780 nm). Thus, both the serial numbers 112 a and 112 b are visible under visible light, and the serial number 112 a is also detectable under infrared light, while the serial number 112 b is not detectable under infrared light.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the invisible feature detection device taught by Adachi into the test station for inspecting a semi-finished product disclosed by Schocher. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “Since the sheet recognition device of the present invention includes the invisible-feature detection device of the present invention, it enables easy, low-cost recognition (type determination) and/or authenticity determination of a sheet including a serial number with an invisible feature printed thereon.” (Adachi: 0040). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Schocher with Adachi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 27.
Regarding claim 28, Schocher in view of Adachi discloses: The sensor system as claimed in claim 27, wherein the sensor system is configured such that it is in the first operating mode directly after activation, in particular after switching on or start-up, and/or that it can be switched from the first operating mode to the second operating mode by an operator (Claim term “and/or” is interpreted as disjunctive term “or”) (Schocher: 0004: “This task is solved by a method for checking a security feature in a semi-finished product consisting of at least one paper layer, in which, after the production and removal of the semi finished product with the security feature from a production machine in a test field, or in which, before further processing of the semi-finished product in a cutting machine, a printing machine or a laminating machine”; Wherein the UV testing is done first, prior to printing process and testing.).
Regarding claim 29, Schocher in view of Adachi discloses: The sensor system as claimed in claim 27, wherein the at least one capture apparatus comprises: an irradiation device configured to generate a third optical radiation and to cause the third optical radiation to impinge on the first semifinished product in the first operating mode (Schocher: 0013: “Preferably, UV light is emitted as the excitation radiation, which preferably has a wavelength of 380 to 110 nm. This allows for particularly rapid excitation and emission of the safety feature, especially the fluorescent melier fibers.”) and on the value document or the second semifinished product in the second operating mode (Adachi: 0065: “As illustrated in FIG. 5, the imaging device 20 includes an illuminator 21 configured to irradiate the uncut banknote sheet 110 on the drum D of the serial number printing device with infrared light; an imager 22 configured to scan the uncut banknote sheet 110 illuminated by the illuminator 21 to generate an infrared image; and a controller 23 configured to control the illuminator 21 and the imager 22.”), and
at least one detector device configured to capture the first optical radiation emanating from the first semifinished product (Schocher: 0021: “Furthermore, the test station 21 includes a detection device or a detector 36, which detects the radiation emitted by the safety feature 23 after excitation.”) and respectively the second optical radiation emanating from the value document or the second semifinished product in response to their being impinged on by the third optical radiation (Adachi: 0065: “The invisible-feature detection device 10 includes an imaging device 20 as a detector (detection device) configured to detect an invisible feature from the uncut banknote sheet 110; and a detection device 30.”).
Regarding claim 30, Schocher in view of Adachi discloses: The sensor system as claimed in claim 27, wherein the at least one capture apparatus comprises: a first irradiation device configured to generate a third optical radiation and to cause the third optical radiation to impinge on the first semifinished product in the first operating mode (Schocher: 0013: “Preferably, UV light is emitted as the excitation radiation, which preferably has a wavelength of 380 to 110 nm. This allows for particularly rapid excitation and emission of the safety feature, especially the fluorescent melier fibers.”),
a second irradiation device configured to generate a fourth optical radiation, which is different than the third optical radiation, and to cause the fourth optical radiation to impinge on the value document or the second semifinished product in the second operating mode (Adachi: 0065: “As illustrated in FIG. 5, the imaging device 20 includes an illuminator 21 configured to irradiate the uncut banknote sheet 110 on the drum D of the serial number printing device with infrared light; an imager 22 configured to scan the uncut banknote sheet 110 illuminated by the illuminator 21 to generate an infrared image; and a controller 23 configured to control the illuminator 21 and the imager 22.”), and
at least one detector device configured to capture the first optical radiation emanating from the first semifinished product in response to its being impinged on by the third optical radiation (Schocher: 0021: “Furthermore, the test station 21 includes a detection device or a detector 36, which detects the radiation emitted by the safety feature 23 after excitation.”) and respectively the second optical radiation emanating from the value document or the second semifinished product in response to its being impinged on by the fourth optical radiation (Adachi: 0065: “The invisible-feature detection device 10 includes an imaging device 20 as a detector (detection device) configured to detect an invisible feature from the uncut banknote sheet 110; and a detection device 30.”),
wherein the third optical radiation has in particular a higher intensity and/or a broader spectrum and/or a greater number of different spectral components than the fourth optical radiation (Claim term “and/or” is interpreted as disjunctive term “or”) (Schocher: 0013: “Preferably, UV light is emitted as the excitation radiation, which preferably has a wavelength of 380 to 110 nm. This allows for particularly rapid excitation and emission of the safety feature, especially the fluorescent melier fibers.”)
(Adachi: 0059: “A serial number 112 in one location (a serial number 112 a ) is printed using an infrared-absorptive ink and a serial number 112 in another location (a serial number 112 b ) is printed using an infrared-transmissive ink. The serial numbers 112 a and 112 b each absorb light having a wavelength band within at least part of the visible light range (e.g., 380 to 780 nm). The serial number 112a also absorbs light having a wavelength band within at least part of the infrared range (e.g., a wavelength band exceeding 780 nm), while the serial number 112 b transmits light within the infrared range (e.g., a wavelength band exceeding 780 nm). Thus, both the serial numbers 112 a and 112 b are visible under visible light, and the serial number 112 a is also detectable under infrared light, while the serial number 112 b is not detectable under infrared light.”; Wherein the UV radiation is of higher intensity than infrared light).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schocher in view of Adachi, and further in view of Auslander et al. (US-20070119951-A1) hereinafter referenced as Auslander.
Regarding claim 24, Schocher in view of Adachi discloses: The method as claimed in claim 16, wherein capturing the first optical radiation at the first semifinished product is effected by the measurement of the luminescence (Schocher: 0013: “Preferably, UV light is emitted as the excitation radiation, which preferably has a wavelength of 380 to 110 nm. This allows for particularly rapid excitation and emission of the safety feature, especially the fluorescent melier fibers.”).
Schocher in view of Adachi does not disclose expressly: wherein the captured first and second optical radiation are characteristic of the same optical property, in particular both characteristic of luminescence, Raman scattering, surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) or absorption, of the first semifinished product and the value document or the second semifinished product, and/or
wherein capturing the first optical radiation at the first semifinished product and capturing the second optical radiation at the second semifinished product or the value document are effected by the same optical measurement method, in particular by measurement of the luminescence or by measurement of the Raman scattering, in particular surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS), or by measurement of the absorption (Claim term “and/or” is interpreted as disjunctive term “or”).
Thus, Schocher in view of Adachi does not disclose expressly: wherein capturing the first optical radiation at the first semifinished product and capturing the second optical radiation at the second semifinished product or the value document are affected by the same optical measurement method, in particular by measurement of the luminescence.
Auslander discloses: a method for marking documents with two different luminescent markers, such that the two different luminescent markers have wavelength bands that are distinct enough to be non-intrusive with one another (Auslander: Abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the infrared ink disclosed by Schocher in view of Adachi with the “luminescently” non-intrusive florescent ink taught by Auslander. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “advantages include security against interception of information and duplication, forensic features are also advantageously provided and the product code may be changed on demand. Moreover, information can be captured reliably under adverse conditions and a high density of information may be stored…Multiple messages can be encoded in the same area using different inks without masking each other” (Auslander: 0064-0065). Further, one skilled in the art could have substituted the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the substitution would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Schocher in view of Adachi with Auslander to obtain the invention as specified in claim 24.
Regarding claim 26, Schocher in view of Adachi discloses: The method as claimed in claim 16.
Schocher in view of Adachi does not disclose expressly: wherein a sensor used for capturing and testing the second optical radiation is structurally identical to or the same as that used for capturing and testing the first optical radiation.
Thus, Schocher in view of Adachi does not disclose expressly: wherein the sensor used for the capturing and testing the second optical radiation, being for capturing and testing UV light radiation, which is the same as that used for capturing and testing the first optical radiation.
Auslander discloses: a method for marking documents with two different luminescent markers, such that the two different luminescent markers have wavelength bands that are distinct enough to be non-intrusive with one another (Auslander: Abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the infrared ink disclosed by Schocher in view of Adachi with the “luminescently” non-intrusive florescent ink taught by Auslander. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “advantages include security against interception of information and duplication, forensic features are also advantageously provided and the product code may be changed on demand. Moreover, information can be captured reliably under adverse conditions and a high density of information may be stored…Multiple messages can be encoded in the same area using different inks without masking each other” (Auslander: 0064-0065). Further, one skilled in the art could have substituted the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the substitution would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Schocher in view of Adachi with Auslander to obtain the invention as specified in claim 26.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/ANTHONY J RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights