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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated June 25, 2026. However, new rejections may have been made using the same prior art if still applicable to the newly presented amendments and/or arguments.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9 – 17, 19 – 22, 24, 26 and 28 – 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antes et al. (USPN 5,104,471) in view of Chiang et al. (USPN 5,380,695).
Antes et al. disclose a laminate (Figures; Abstract) comprising a record layer (Figures 1 – 2, #9; Column 5, lines 24 – 27), a transparent cover layer (Figures 1 – 2, #1; Column 2, lines 57 – 58) and a security element (Figures 1 – 2, #8; Column 2, lines 47 – 51), which is laminated in between the record layer and the cover layer (Figures 1 – 2, #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 – 2, #3), a reflective layer arranged on the relief surface (Figures 1 – 2, #4; Column 3, lines 31 – 40) and an adhesive layer (Figures 1 – 2, #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 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). However, Antes et al. fail to disclose the adhesive layer has an internal cohesive force for maintaining a bonding within the adhesive layer, the internal cohesive force of the adhesive layer being less than the adhesive force adhering the adhesive layer to the record layer or the cover layer, whereby a cohesive failure occurs within the adhesive layer before an adhesive failure occurs between the adhesive layer and the record layer or between the adhesive layer and the cover layer when the tensile force is exerted on the security element.
Chiang et al. teach a laminate (Figures; Abstract) having an adhesive layer that has an internal cohesive force for maintaining a bonding within the adhesive layer (Column 5, lines 3 – 17; Column 5, line 56 to Column 6, line 18), the internal cohesive force of the adhesive layer being less than the adhesive force adhering the adhesive layer to the record layer or the cover layer (Column 5, lines 3 – 17; Column 5, line 56 to Column 6, line 18), whereby a cohesive failure occurs within the adhesive layer before an adhesive failure occurs between the adhesive layer and the record layer or between the adhesive layer and the cover layer when the tensile force is exerted on the security element (Column 5, lines 3 – 17; Column 5, line 56 to Column 6, line 18) for the purpose of destroying the laminate by attempted delamination of the laminate (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an adhesive layer that has an internal cohesive force in Antes et al. in order to destroy the laminate by attempted delamination of the laminate as taught by Chiang et al.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antes et al. (USPN 5,104,471) in view of Chiang et al. (USPN 5,380,695) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toshina et al. (EP 1 168 111 A2).
Antes et al., as modified with Chiang et al., discloses the claimed invention except for 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 the modified Antes et al. in order form a counterfeit-proofness article as taught by Toshina et al.
Claims 8, 18, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antes et al. (USPN 5,104,471) in view of Chiang et al. (USPN 5,380,695) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phillips et al. (WO 2005/026848 A2).
Antes et al., as modified with Chiang et al., discloses the claimed invention except for 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 Chiang et al. (USPN 5,380,695) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaminsky et al. (EP 1 431 063 A2).
Antes et al., as modified with Chiang et al., discloses the claimed invention except for 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 Chiang et al. (USPN 5,380,695) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swartz (USPN 3,912,842).
Antes et al., as modified with Chiang et al., discloses the claimed invention except for 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, and 7 – 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “However, the Antes patent is completely silent as to an adhesive layer that is "split- up" or otherwise damaged or fractured on removal of other layers.”, please see the newly presented rejection in view of Chiang et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights