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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are potentially allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the aforementioned claims set forth a series of physical structures/configurations that are well beyond that which is disclosed within WO 2020/156759 A1 to Kohl et al. (“Kohl”), later published in English as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0134792, which is the prior art closest to Applicants’ claimed invention (compare Applicants’ figs. 1-2 to Kohl figs. 1-2), and there would be no obvious reason to modify Kohl to the extent necessary to satisfy each of Applicants’ pertinent limitations.
With respect to claim 1 (and claim 2-13 depending therefrom), the provision of a security image that has differing appearances based on the angle at which it is viewed is well known, but the Kohl reference specifically calls for the use of two oblique viewing angles (see Kohl fig. 1), whereas Applicants’ current invention specifically calls for the use of one oblique viewing angle and one “vertical viewing direction” angle (see Applicants’ fig. 2). If one were to modify the Kohl reference to satisfy the specific viewing angles that Applicants now call for, then the Kohl arrangement of basic information 12 indicia would need to be commensurately rearranged, which would cause the Kohl invention to no longer be capable of performing in the specific manner that its disclosure discusses.
In view of the foregoing, the modifications necessary to satisfy each of Applicants’ claim limitations would be likely to render the Kohl assembly incapable of continuing to operate/behave in the particular manner set forth within the reference itself (given the particularly sensitive nature of such optical security element assemblies), which would be strongly indicative of an application of improper hindsight reasoning.
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 1-13 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.
The claim 1 recitation of “[a]n identification document for identifying a person with a coloured identification image” is unclear, as it is unknown whether: i) the identification document is to be used to identify a person, said identification document containing an identification image therein; or ii) the identification document is to be used to identify a person who has/retains a colored identification image. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Do Applicants actually intend to recite “[a]n identification document for identifying a person, comprising a colored identification image, a carrier…”? Please review/revise/clarify.
The claims 1 and 11 recitations of “the positive image is reconstructed”, “the negative image is only reconstructed” and “neither the positive image nor the negative image is reconstructed” are unclear, as the claims contains no prior language explicitly indicating that the respective images are actually deconstructed anytime beforehand. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
The claim 1 recitation of “viewed vertically” is unclear, as it is unknown whether Applicants desire the identification document to be: i) viewed from the previously recited “vertical viewing direction” (the angular perspective 34 discussed in Applicants’ filed specification and filed drawings); or ii) simply viewed as the card is positioned in some degree of a vertical orientation. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
Regarding claims 2, 4 and 11-12, the phrase "in particular" renders the respective claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are actually requisite parts of the claimed invention.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for multiple limitations in the claims, including: i) claim 1 recites the limitation “the coloured identification of the person” (note that the previous claim language only describes “a person with a coloured identification image”); ii) claims 2 and 11 recite the limitation "the partial areas"; iii) claim 3 recites the limitation “the identification image of the person”; iv) claim 6 recites the limitation “the raster elements”; v) claim 11 recites the limitation “the strips of the positive image and the negative image”; vi) claim 12 recites the limitation “the resolution limit” and “the human eye”; and vii) claim 13 recites the limitation “its contrast”.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, the phrase and term "preferably predominantly" and “preferably” render the respective claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase and term are actually requisite parts of the claimed invention.
The term “narrow” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrow” 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. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
The claim 12 recitation of “the resolution limit of the human eye” is unclear, as human beings of differing eyesight abilities will have differing respective resolution limits. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Please review/revise/clarify.
Claims 3, 5, 7-8 and 10 are rejected as depending (directly or indirectly) from rejected independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN V LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel J. Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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.
/JUSTIN V LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637