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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 30, in the reply filed on March 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 31 – 41 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 5, 2026.
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 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 23 – 25, 29 and 30 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 phrase “has or consists of” in claims 7 and 23 is unclear, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear from the above phrase if the language of the claim is meant to be open or closed. The term “has” implies open language where additional materials may be presented. The term “consists of” implies closed language where additional materials may not be present. The opposite language is contradictory and unclear.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “0.2 µm to 20 µm”, and the claim also recites “6 µm to 20 µm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The phrase “is semi-transparent and/or comprises” in claim 11 is unclear, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear from the above phrase if the language of the claim is meant to be open or closed. The term “comprises” implies open language where additional materials may be presented. The term “is semi-transparent” implies closed language where additional materials may not be present. The opposite language is contradictory and unclear.
The phrase “comprises or consists of” in claim 13, 15, 17, 24, and 25, is unclear, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear from the above phrase if the language of the claim is meant to be open or closed. The term “comprises” implies open language where additional materials may be presented. The term “consists of” implies closed language where additional materials may not be present. The opposite language is contradictory and unclear.
The phrase “welded joint” in claim 29 and “material-bonding joint” in claim 30 are unclear, which render the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear from the claim language of both claims and the specification what the structural difference is between these two joints. The specification appears to imply that both joints are formed between the layers without the presence of an adhesive or bonding layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 9 – 17, 19 – 22, 24, 26 and 28 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Antes et al. (USPN 5,104,471).
Antes et al. disclose a laminate (Figures; Abstract) comprising a record layer (Figures 1 – 3, #9; Column 5, lines 24 – 27), a transparent cover layer (Figures 1 – 3, #1; Column 2, lines 57 – 58) and a security element (Figures 1 – 3, #8; Column 2, lines 47 – 51), which is laminated in between the record layer and the cover layer (Figures 1 – 3, #1, 8 and 9), wherein the security element has a detachment layer (Figure 3, #2, 14 and 15; Column 6, line 63 to Column 7, line 24), a replication layer with a relief surface arranged on its side facing away from the detachment layer (Figures 1 – 3, #3), a reflective layer arranged on the relief surface (Figures 1 – 3, #4; Column 3, lines 31 – 40) and an adhesive layer (Figures 1 – 3, #2, which forms a side of the security element facing away from the detachment layer (Figures 1 – 3), wherein a) the adhesive layer adheres to the record layer (Figures 1 – 3, #6) and the detachment layer adheres to the cover layer (Figure 3, #2, 14 and 15; Column 6, line 63 to Column 7, line 24) or the adhesive layer adheres to the cover layer (Figure 3, #2, 14 and 15; Column 6, line 63 to Column 7, line 24) and the detachment layer adheres to the record layer (Figure 3, #6, 16 and 17; Column 7, lines 25 – 61), and b) the laminate is designed such that the adhesive layer of the security element can be split up by a tensile force exerted on the security element by the record layer and the cover layer (Column 7, lines 64 to Column 8, line 55) as in claim 1. With respect to claim 2, the adhesive layer has the lowest yield point and the lowest elastic modulus of the layers of the security element (Column 6, line 63 to Column 8, line 55, wherein the separation may be controlled by modifying the adhesive layer). Regarding claim 3, an adhesive force of the adhesive layer to its directly neighboring layer consisting of cover layer or record layer is higher than the cohesive force of the adhesive layer (Column 6, line 63 to Column 8, line 55, wherein the separation may be controlled by modifying the adhesive layer). For claim 5, an adhesive force within the adhesive layer is lower than an adhesive force between the security element and the record layer and also is lower than an adhesive force between the security element and the cover layer (Column 6, line 63 to Column 8, line 55, wherein the separation may be controlled by modifying the adhesive layer). In claim 6, a lowest force out of cohesive and adhesive forces within the security element or within the laminate with the security element is the cohesive force of the adhesive layer (Column 6, line 63 to Column 8, line 55, wherein the separation may be controlled by modifying the adhesive layer). Regarding claim 7, the adhesive has a ductile layer (Column 5, lines 3 – 6, wherein the finished product is stored in a roll, thereby showing ductility of the layers).With regard to claim 9, the adhesive layer has a layer thickness in a range of from 0.2 μm to 20 μm and/or in a range of from 6 μm to 20 μm (Column 4, lines 32 – 45). As in claim 10, the adhesive layer contains thermoplastics or crosslinking or crosslinked polymers (Column 4, lines 46 – 53). With respect to claim 11, the adhesive layer is semi-transparent (Column 3, lines 40 – 45, wherein the adhesive has to be at least semi-transparent if an image can be seen below). Regarding claim 12, the detachment layer has a thickness in a range of from 0.2 μm to 10 μm (Column 3, lines 10 – 12). For claim 13, the detachment layer comprises or consists of thermoplastics (Column 3, lines 6 – 10, wherein polyurethane is a thermoplastic). In claim 14, the relief surface of the replication layer forms optically active structures (Figures 1 – 3, #3; Column 3, line 30 to Column 4, line 16). With regard to claim 15, the replication layer comprises or consists of thermoplastics (Column 4, lines 15 – 32). As in claim 16, the thickness of the replication layer lies in a range of from 0.2 μm to 20 μm (Column 4, lines 15 – 32). With respect to claim 17, the reflective layer comprises or consists of a metal layer or a high-refractive-index layer or combinations thereof (Column 3, lines 30 – 62). Regarding claim 19, the layer thickness of the reflective layer lies in a range of from 40 nm to 200 nm (Column 3, lines 30 – 62). For claim 20, on the side of the adhesive layer which faces the replication layer and the reflective layer, the security element has a stabilization layer (Figure 1, #1; Column 2, lines 56 – 67). In claim 21, the stabilization layer has a thickness of from 0.5 μm to 20 μm (Column 2, lines 67 – 68). With regard to claim 22, a ratio of the thickness of the adhesive layer to the thickness of the stabilization layer lies in a range of from 0.4 to 4 (Column 2, lines 67 – 68; Column 4, lines 32 – 45). As in claim 24, the stabilization layer comprises thermoplastics (Column 2, lines 56 – 62, wherein polyester is a thermoplastic). With respect to claim 26, the layer thickness of the cover layer satisfies one or a combination of the following conditions: the sum of the thickness of the adhesive layer and the cover layer lies in a range of from 26 μm to 270 μm; the cover layer has a layer thickness in a range of from 25 μm to 250 μm (Column 2, lines 67 – 68; Column 4, lines 32 – 45). Regarding claim 28, the adhesive layer adheres to the cover layer or the record layer through an adhesive joint (Figure 1, #1, 2, 6 and 9). For claim 29, the detachment layer adheres to the cover layer or the record layer via a welded joint. (Figure 1, #1, 2, 6 and 9). In claim 30, the adhesive layer adheres to the reflective layer through a material-bonding joint and/or adheres to the replication layer through a material-bonding joint (Figure 1, #5 and 6).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antes et al. (USPN 5,104,471) in view of Toshina et al. (EP 1 168 111 A2).
Antes et al. disclose a laminate (Figures; Abstract) comprising a record layer (Figures 1 – 3, #9; Column 5, lines 24 – 27), a transparent cover layer (Figures 1 – 3, #1; Column 2, lines 57 – 58) and a security element (Figures 1 – 3, #8; Column 2, lines 47 – 51), which is laminated in between the record layer and the cover layer (Figures 1 – 3, #1, 8 and 9), wherein the security element has a detachment layer (Figure 3, #2, 14 and 15; Column 6, line 63 to Column 7, line 24), a replication layer with a relief surface arranged on its side facing away from the detachment layer (Figures 1 – 3, #3), a reflective layer arranged on the relief surface (Figures 1 – 3, #4; Column 3, lines 31 – 40) and an adhesive layer (Figures 1 – 3, #2, which forms a side of the security element facing away from the detachment layer (Figures 1 – 3), wherein a) the adhesive layer adheres to the record layer (Figures 1 – 3, #6) and the detachment layer adheres to the cover layer (Figure 3, #2, 14 and 15; Column 6, line 63 to Column 7, line 24) or the adhesive layer adheres to the cover layer (Figure 3, #2, 14 and 15; Column 6, line 63 to Column 7, line 24) and the detachment layer adheres to the record layer (Figure 3, #6, 16 and 17; Column 7, lines 25 – 61), and b) the laminate is designed such that the adhesive layer of the security element can be split up by a tensile force exerted on the security element by the record layer and the cover layer (Column 7, lines 64 to Column 8, line 55). However, Antes et al. fail to disclose the peel force for detaching the cover layer is equal to or greater than 3.5 N/10 mm strip width.
Toshina et al. teach a hologram (Figures; Abstract) with a cover layer that has a peel force for detaching the cover layer is equal to or greater than 3.5 N/10 mm strip width (Paragraph 0020) for the purpose of forming a counterfeit-proofness article (Paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a peel force equal to or greater than 3.5 N/10 mm strip width in Antes et al. in order form a counterfeit-proofness article as taught by Toshina et al.
Claims 8, 18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antes et al. (USPN 5,104,471) in view of Phillips et al. (WO 2005/026848 A2).
Antes et al. disclose a laminate (Figures; Abstract) comprising a record layer (Figures 1 – 3, #9; Column 5, lines 24 – 27), a transparent cover layer (Figures 1 – 3, #1; Column 2, lines 57 – 58) and a security element (Figures 1 – 3, #8; Column 2, lines 47 – 51), which is laminated in between the record layer and the cover layer (Figures 1 – 3, #1, 8 and 9), wherein the security element has a detachment layer (Figure 3, #2, 14 and 15; Column 6, line 63 to Column 7, line 24), a replication layer with a relief surface arranged on its side facing away from the detachment layer (Figures 1 – 3, #3), a reflective layer arranged on the relief surface (Figures 1 – 3, #4; Column 3, lines 31 – 40) and an adhesive layer (Figures 1 – 3, #2, which forms a side of the security element facing away from the detachment layer (Figures 1 – 3), wherein a) the adhesive layer adheres to the record layer (Figures 1 – 3, #6) and the detachment layer adheres to the cover layer (Figure 3, #2, 14 and 15; Column 6, line 63 to Column 7, line 24) or the adhesive layer adheres to the cover layer (Figure 3, #2, 14 and 15; Column 6, line 63 to Column 7, line 24) and the detachment layer adheres to the record layer (Figure 3, #6, 16 and 17; Column 7, lines 25 – 61), and b) the laminate is designed such that the adhesive layer of the security element can be split up by a tensile force exerted on the security element by the record layer and the cover layer (Column 7, lines 64 to Column 8, line 55). However, Antes et al. fail to disclose the adhesive layer consists thereof a material with an elastic modulus in a range of from 20 MPa to 300 MPa, the reflective layer has a refractive index of more than 1.9 for wavelengths in a range of from 420 nm to 780 nm, and the record layer and the cover layer comprise or consist of polycarbonate
Phillips et al. teach an optical laminate (Figures; Abstract) having the reflective layer has a refractive index of more than 1.9 for wavelengths in a range of from 420 nm to 780 nm (Paragraphs 041 – 042), and the record layer and the cover layer comprise or consist of polycarbonate (Paragraph 0027 and 0035) for the purpose of giving the laminate color shifting properties to the optical structure (Paragraph 041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have polycarbonate and a reflective layer has a refractive index of more than 1.9 for wavelengths in a range of from 420 nm to 780 nm in Antes et al. in order to give the laminate color shifting properties to the optical structure as taught by Phillips et al.
With regard to the limitation of “the adhesive layer consists thereof a material with an elastic modulus in a range of from 20 MPa to 300 MPa”, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials of an adhesive layer has a layer thickness in a range of from 0.2 μm to 20 μm and/or in a range of from 6 μm to 20 μm (Column 4, lines 32 – 45), and the adhesive layer contains thermoplastics or crosslinking or crosslinked polymers (Column 4, lines 46 – 53) in Antes et al. Antes et al. also uses the similar production steps of layering the adhesive with additional layers to produce the laminate. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. MPEP 2112.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antes et al. (USPN 5,104,471) in view of Kaminsky et al. (EP 1 431 063 A2).
Antes et al. disclose a laminate (Figures; Abstract) comprising a record layer (Figures 1 – 3, #9; Column 5, lines 24 – 27), a transparent cover layer (Figures 1 – 3, #1; Column 2, lines 57 – 58) and a security element (Figures 1 – 3, #8; Column 2, lines 47 – 51), which is laminated in between the record layer and the cover layer (Figures 1 – 3, #1, 8 and 9), wherein the security element has a detachment layer (Figure 3, #2, 14 and 15; Column 6, line 63 to Column 7, line 24), a replication layer with a relief surface arranged on its side facing away from the detachment layer (Figures 1 – 3, #3), a reflective layer arranged on the relief surface (Figures 1 – 3, #4; Column 3, lines 31 – 40) and an adhesive layer (Figures 1 – 3, #2, which forms a side of the security element facing away from the detachment layer (Figures 1 – 3), wherein a) the adhesive layer adheres to the record layer (Figures 1 – 3, #6) and the detachment layer adheres to the cover layer (Figure 3, #2, 14 and 15; Column 6, line 63 to Column 7, line 24) or the adhesive layer adheres to the cover layer (Figure 3, #2, 14 and 15; Column 6, line 63 to Column 7, line 24) and the detachment layer adheres to the record layer (Figure 3, #6, 16 and 17; Column 7, lines 25 – 61), and b) the laminate is designed such that the adhesive layer of the security element can be split up by a tensile force exerted on the security element by the record layer and the cover layer (Column 7, lines 64 to Column 8, line 55). However, Antes et al. fail to disclose the stabilization layer has or consists of a layer which consists of a material with an elastic modulus in a range of from 500 MPa to 1500 MPa.
Kaminsky et al. teaches a laminate (Figures; Abstract) with a stabilization layer has or consists of a layer which consists of a material with an elastic modulus in a range of from 500 MPa to 1500 MPa (Paragraph 0057) for the purpose of allowing lamination to occur with heat activated adhesive and other elements (Paragraph 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a stabilization layer with an elastic modulus in a range of from 500 MPa to 1500 MPa in Antes et al. in order to allow lamination to occur with heat activated adhesive and other elements (Paragraph 0057).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antes et al. (USPN 5,104,471) in view of Swartz (USPN 3,912,842).
Antes et al. disclose a laminate (Figures; Abstract) comprising a record layer (Figures 1 – 3, #9; Column 5, lines 24 – 27), a transparent cover layer (Figures 1 – 3, #1; Column 2, lines 57 – 58) and a security element (Figures 1 – 3, #8; Column 2, lines 47 – 51), which is laminated in between the record layer and the cover layer (Figures 1 – 3, #1, 8 and 9), wherein the security element has a detachment layer (Figure 3, #2, 14 and 15; Column 6, line 63 to Column 7, line 24), a replication layer with a relief surface arranged on its side facing away from the detachment layer (Figures 1 – 3, #3), a reflective layer arranged on the relief surface (Figures 1 – 3, #4; Column 3, lines 31 – 40) and an adhesive layer (Figures 1 – 3, #2, which forms a side of the security element facing away from the detachment layer (Figures 1 – 3), wherein a) the adhesive layer adheres to the record layer (Figures 1 – 3, #6) and the detachment layer adheres to the cover layer (Figure 3, #2, 14 and 15; Column 6, line 63 to Column 7, line 24) or the adhesive layer adheres to the cover layer (Figure 3, #2, 14 and 15; Column 6, line 63 to Column 7, line 24) and the detachment layer adheres to the record layer (Figure 3, #6, 16 and 17; Column 7, lines 25 – 61), and b) the laminate is designed such that the adhesive layer of the security element can be split up by a tensile force exerted on the security element by the record layer and the cover layer (Column 7, lines 64 to Column 8, line 55). However, Antes et al. fail to disclose the record layer has a thickness in a range of from 25 μm to 250 μm.
Swartz teaches a laminate having a record layer has a thickness in a range of from 25 μm to 250 μm (Column 2, lines 43 – 53) for the purpose of preventing the kinking of other laminated layers (Column 2, lines 51 – 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a record layer has a thickness in a range of from 25 μm to 250 μm in Antes et al. in order to prevent the kinking of other laminated layers as taught by Swartz.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Faykish is cited to show the state of the art with regard to laminates containing security elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patricia L Nordmeyer whose telephone number is (571)272-1496. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6:30pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Patricia L. Nordmeyer/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/pln/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 March 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights