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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2024 and 04/22/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment that was filed on 09/13/2024 is entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLMES et al. (US PUB 2018/0186166; herein after “Holmes”) in view of LIEBERMAN et al. (US PUB 2018/0024497; herein after “Lieberman”).
Holmes and Lieberman disclose system and method of generating security documents and security devices, and to the corresponding products. Therefore, they are analogous art.
Regarding claim 1, Holmes teaches a system for generating variable optical images in curable material using generic optical matrices (See Abstract), the system comprising: an applicator configured to apply the curable material to a portion of a substrate supported by a carrier web (i.e., a transparent curable material 205 is first applied to the support layer 201 using an application module 210 which here comprises a patterned print cylinder 211 which is supplied with the curable material from a doctor chamber 213 via an intermediate roller 212, see Para. 0232: In the FIG. 4); a roller comprising surface elements formed on an outside surface of the roller, the roller being configured to form optical structures in the curable material, wherein the surface elements on the roller form the optical structures in the curable material when the surface elements contact the curable material as the substrate travels over the outside surface of the roller (i.e., The support 201 is then conveyed to a casting module 220 which here comprises a casting tool 221 in the form of a cylinder [roller] carrying a surface relief 225 [surface elements on outside of cylinder, Fig. 4] defining the shape of the focusing elements [optical elements] which are to be cast into the curable material 205, see Para. 0233); a radiation source within the roller configured to cure the curable material after the optical structures are formed in the curable material (i.e., the curable material 205 is cured by exposing it to appropriate curing energy such as radiation R from a source 222. This preferably takes place while the curable material is in contact with the surface relief 225 although if the material is already sufficiently viscous this could be performed after separation. In the example shown, the material is irradiated through the support layer 201 although the source 222 could alternatively be positioned above the support layer 201, see Para. 0234); and an image generation component configured to form a predetermined image (i.e., a method of manufacturing a security device, comprising ... 'forming an array of focusing elements on the. first surface of the transparent support layer in at least a first region; and (b) applying an image array to the second surface of the transparent support layer in at least part of the first region; whereby the array of focusing elements and the image array are registered to one another at least in the machine direction, see Para. 0113:).
Holmes teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of a transparent roller; an image generation component configured to obliterate portions of the optical structures.
Holmes further teaches the support 201 is then conveyed to a casting module 220 which here comprises a casting tool 221 in the form of a cylinder [roller] carrying a surface relief 225 [surface elements on outside of cylinder, Fig. 4] defining the shape of the focusing elements [optical elements] which are to be cast into the curable material 205, see Para. 0233.
Furthermore, in a related field of endeavor Lieberman teaches: an image generation component 1104 may be configured to obliterate individual ones of the pixels and/or sub-pixels of generic optical matrix 1108 by exposing the physical substrate embodying negative 1106 to radiation such that the radiation passes through portions of the physical substrate where negative 1106 is not located and exposes corresponding portions of the radiation curable material, Para. 0089.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holmes such that an image forming method, where an image generation component is to obliterate individual ones of the pixels and/or sub-pixels of generic optical matrix as taught by Lieberman, for the purpose of instantly and selectively creating images that can be printed (Lieberman, Paras. 0005-0009).
Regarding Claim 4, Holmes teaches the curable material comprises a radiation curable material (i.e., the curable material 205 is cured by exposing it to appropriate curing energy such as radiation R from a source 222, Para. 0234).
Regarding Claim 7, Holmes teaches the surface elements of the transparent roller form a surface relief pattern and wherein the optical structures on the curable material form a generic optical matrix corresponding to the surface relief pattern (i.e., the support 201 is then conveyed to a casting module 220 which here comprises casting tool 221 in the form of a cylinder [roller] carrying a surface relief 225 [surface elements] defining the shape of the focusing elements [generic optical matrix] which are to be cast into the curable material 205, Para. 0233).
Regarding Claim 8, Holmes fails to teach the surface relief pattern is a negative of the generic optical matrix.
However, in a related field of endeavor Lieberman teaches: a system 1100 configured for fabricating variable digital optical images using generic optical matrices, in accordance with one or more implementations. In exemplary implementations, system 1100 may include one or more of an image negative component 1102, an image generation component 1104, and/or other components ... The negative 1106 may be based on the base image and a geometry associated with a generic optical matrix. Exemplary implementations for generating a negative are described supra, Paras. 0079-0081, FIG. 11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holmes the system of negative may be based on the base image and a geometry associated with a generic optical matrix as taught by Lieberman for the purpose of providing modifiable negative images for generating variable printed optical images (Lieberman, Para. 0218).
Regarding Claim 9, Holmes fails to teach the optical structures comprise static physical pixels.
Lieberman teaches one aspect ('aspect sixty-two") relates to an optical image that is instantly produced and different from other optical images produced in the same printing cycle, the optical image being prepared by a process comprising the steps of: obtaining a pre-prepared physical generic optical matrix having an arrayed motif of static physical pixels corresponding to color, Para. 0178.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Holmes to include pixels as taught by Lieberman for the purpose of providing various image effects such as one or more of a three-dimensional optical effect, a two-dimensional optical effect, a dynamic optical effect, a scattering effect, a holographic white effect, a lens effect, a Fresnel lens effect, a brightness modulation effect, a lithographic effect, a stereogram effect, a nanotext and/or microtext effect, a hidden image effect, a moire effect, a concealed animated pattern effect, a covert laser readable (CLR) effect, a multiple background effect, a pearlescent effect, a true color image effect, a guilloche effect, an animation effect, an achromatic Fresnel effect, a dynamic CLR image, a kinematic image, a full parallax effect, a scratch holographic effect, a polarizing effect, a watermark effect, a metallic effect, a binary optical structure, or a Fresnel prism (Lieberman, Paras. 0152, 0169).
Regarding Claim 10, Holmes teaches the radiation source is an ultraviolet light source (i.e., the curable material 205 is exposed to the curing energy, e.g. UV radiation, Para. 0240).
Regarding Claim 11, Holmes fails to teach the image generation component is
configured to obliterate the portions of the optical structures based on digital information received by the image generation component,
wherein the digital information identifies which portions of the optical str.uctures to obliterate in the cured material.
Lieberman teaches when the radiation curable material has been cured, it may become affixed, adhered, bonded, and/or otherwise attached to generic optical matrix 1108. As such, image generation component 1104 may be configured to obliterate individual ones of the pixels and/or sub-pixels of generic optical matrix 1108 by exposing the physical substrate embodying negative 1106 to radiation such that the radiation passes through portions of the physical substrate where negative 1106 is not located and exposes corresponding portions of the radiation curable material. The portions of the radiation curable material may become cured responsive to being exposed to the radiation'; Para. 0110: As mentioned above connection with FIG. 11, image negative component 1102 may include electronic storage configured to store the negative in an electronic format (e.g., in implementations in which negative 1106 is in an electronic format). Electronic storage may comprise non-transitory storage media that electronically stores information [digital information] ... Electronic storage may store software algorithms, information determined by processor(s), information received from a computing device and/or printing apparatus, and/or other information that enables image negative component 1102 to function as described herein, Para. 0089.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Holmes to include image generation methods as taught by Lieberman for the purpose of providing information that help generate modifiable negative images for printing variable optical images (Lieberman, Paras. 0110, 9218).
Regarding Claim 12, Holmes fails to teach the image generation component is configured to obliterate the portions of the optical structures by laser ablating portions of the optical structures.
Lieberman teaches the substrate of the generic optical matrix may be white (or any other color) such that the obliterated pixels and/or sub-pixels rendered transparent appear white (or any other color). In some implementations, a pixel and/or sub-pixel may be obliterated by one or more of ... laser ablation, Para. 0089.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Holmes to include
obliterating methods as taught by Lieberman for the purpose of providing modifiable negative images for generating variable printed optical images (Lieberman, Paras. 0100-0101).
Regarding Claim 13, Holmes fails to teach the image generation component is
configured to obliterate the portions of the optical structures by printing ink over portions of the optical structures with an inkjet printer.
Lieberman teaches Para. 0082: image generation component 1104 may be configured to obliterate individual ones of the pixels and/or sub-pixels of a generic optical matrix 1108 according to negative 1106 while preserving remaining pixels and/or sub-pixels; Para. 0090: image generation component 1104 may be configured to print ink and/or otherwise deposit pigment on generic optical matrix 1108. The image generation component 1104 may be configured to print black ink and/or other pigments over individual pixels and/or sub-pixels (e.g., preserved and/or obliterated pixels and/or sub-pixels). The image generation component 1104 may be configured to print black at various densities over individual ones of the remaining pixels and/or sub-pixels to
affect a brightness of the individual ones of the remaining pixels and/or sub-pixels; Para. 0100: Examples of apparatuses included in image generation. component 1104 may include one or more of an inkjet printer; Para. 0103: The printing of the negative may be performed with inks, metallic inks, transparent inks, lacquers, and/or other techniques).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Holmes to include
obliteration methods as taught by Lieberman for the purpose of providing modifiable negative images for generating variable printed optical
images (Lieberman, Paras. 0100-0101).
Regarding Claim 13, Holmes teaches the predetermined image comprises a holographic image (Paras. 0001-0002: This invention relates to methods of manufacturing security documents and security devices, and to the corresponding products ... By "security device' we mean a feature which it is not possible to reproduce accurately by faking a visible light copy, e.g. through the use of standardly available photocopying or scanning equipment. Examples include ... holograms).
Holmes fails to teach non-obliterated portions of the optical structures form the holographic image.
Lieberman teaches (Para. 0082: Referring again to FIG. 11, image generation component 1104 may be configured to obliterate individual ones of the pixels and/or sub-pixels of a generic optical matrix 1108 according to negative 1106 while preserving remaining pixels and/or sub-pixels ... the optical image may be colored based on the remaining pixels. The optical image may exhibit non-color effects corresponding to the remaining sub-pixels. The non-color effects of the remaining sub-pixels may give rise to one or more optical effects observable when viewing the optical image. The
one or more optical effects may include ... a holographic white effect...a scratch holographic effect).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Holmes to include
image forming methods as taught by Lieberman for the purpose of providing modifiable negative images for generating variable printed
optical images exhibiting a variety of optical effects (Lieberman, Paras. 0082, 0100-0101).
Regarding Claim 15, Holmes teaches the holographic image comprises encrypted information (Paras. 0001-0002: This invention relates to methods of manufacturing security documents and security devices, and to the corresponding products ... By "security device" we mean a feature which it is not possible to reproduce accurately by taking a visible light copy [encrypted information], e.g. through the use of standardly available photocopying or scanning equipment. Examples include ... holograms).
Regarding Claim 24, Holmes teaches a method for producing holographic optical images in a curable material (see Abstract), the method comprising: applying, by an applicator, a curable material to a portion of a substrate (Para. 0232: In the FIG. 4 embodiment, a transparent curable material 205 is first applied to the support layer 201 using an application module 21 0 which here comprises a patterned print cylinder 211 which is supplied with the curable material from a doctor chamber 213 via an intermediate roller 212); forming optical structures in the curable material by a roller, the roller having surface elements formed on an outside surface of the roller, wherein the
surface elements on the roller form the optical structures in the curable material when the surface elements contact the curable material (Para. 0233: The support 201 is then conveyed to a casting module 220 which here comprises a casting tool 221 in the form of a cylinder [roller] carrying a surface relief 225 [surface elements on outside of cylinder, Fig. 4] defining the shape of the focusing elements [optical elements] which are to be cast into the curable material 205); curing, by a radiation source within the roller, the curable material after the optical structures are formed on the curable material (Para. 0234: the curable material 205 is cured by exposing it to appropriate curing energy such as radiation R from a source 222. This preferably takes place while the curable material is in contact with the surface relief 225 ·although if the material is already sufficiently viscous this could be performed after separation. In the example shown, the material is irradiated through the support layer 201 although the source 222 could alternatively be positioned above the support layer 201); and
an image generation component to form a predetermined image (Para. 0113: a method of manufacturing a security device, comprising ... forming an array of focusing elements on the first surface of the transparent support layer in at least a first region; .and (b), applying an image array to the second surface of the transparent support layer in at least part of the first region; whereby the array of focusing elements and the image array are registered to· one another at least in the machine direction).
Holmes fails to explicitly disclose a transparent roller; and obliterating, by an image generation component, portions of the optical structures.
However, Holmes further teaches Para.0233: The support 201 is then conveyed to a casting module 220 which here comprises a casting tool 221 in the form of a cylinder [roller] carrying a surface relief 225 [surface elements on outside of cylinder, Fig. 4] defining the shape of the focusing elements [optical elements] which are to be cast into the curable material 205).
Furthermore, in a related field of endeavor Lieberman teaches: Para. 0089: image generation component 1104 may be configured to obliterate individual ones of the pixels and/or sub-pixels of generic optical matrix 1108 by exposing the physical substrate embodying negative t106 to radiation such that the radiation passes through portions of the physical substrate where negative 1106 is not located and exposes corresponding portions of the radiation curable material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Holmes to include image forming methods as taught by Lieberman for the purpose of instantly and selectively creating images that can be printed (Lieberman, Paras. 0005-0009).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLMES in view of LIEBERMAN, and further in view of HINNENKAMP (US PUB 2021/0086530).
Regarding Claim 3, Holmes in view of Lieberman teaches the substrate comprises a printed portion and a non-printed portion (i.e., a transparent curable material 205 is first applied.to the support layer 201 using an .application module 210 which here comprises a patterned print cylinder 211 [printing portions; non-printed portions] which is supplied with the curable material from a doctor chamber 213 via an intermediate roller 212, Para. 0232).
Holmes fails to teach the applicator is configured to apply the curable material to the non-printed portion of the substrate.
in a related field of endeavor HINNENKAMP teaches the full curing station 56 is configured to completely cure the radiation curable ink applied to the printed surface, and possibly fully cure any partially cured ink on the non-printed surface(s), (Para. 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Holmes in view of Lieberman to include a curing system as taught by HINNENKAMP for the purpose of prevent overflowing curable material from damaging a transport mechanism of a printing system (HINNENKAMP, Para. 0037).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLMES in view of LIEBERMAN, and further in view of Dichtl (US PUB 2009/0297805).
Regarding Claim 5, Holmes teaches the radiation curable material is cured when exposed to ultraviolet light (I.e., the transparent curable material(s) are curable by exposure to radiation of at least a first wavelength, preferably UV radiation, Para. 0088).
Holmes in view of LIEBERMAN fails to teach the radiation curable material comprises an embossable lacquer.
However, Dichtl teaches the production of the microlens grid on the support foil 20 can occur in the known manner by means of embossing ... the radiation-curing embossing of UV-curing lacquers is preferred, Para. 0066.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Holmes to include a curable material comprises an embossable lacquer as taught by Dichtl for the purpose of providing the best possible anchoring of an embossed optical arrangement (Dichtl, Para. 0066).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-23 and 38-45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding to obliterate the portions of the optical structures, the image generation component is configured to: apply another curable material to the portion of the substrate, such that the other curable material covers the optical structures; and cure portions of the other curable material corresponding to the portions of the optical structures to be obliterated, such that the cured portions of the other curable material prevent the corresponding portions of the optical structures to reflect light.
Regarding claim 38, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding the obliterating comprises: applying another curable material to the portion of the substrate, such that the other curable material covers the optical structures; and curing portions of the other curable material corresponding to the portions of the optical structures to be obliterated, such that the cured portions of the other curable material prevent the corresponding portions of the optical structures to reflect light.
Claims 17-23 and 39-45 depend upon allowable claims 16 or 38.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Power et al. (US PUB 2020/0346396) teaches “an apparatus and process for manufacturing a two-sided product with microscale structures formed on opposing surfaces of the product.”, paragraph 0002.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAK CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-5247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
June 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights