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 .
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.
Claim(s) 20-29 and 31-35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Driesel et al. (US 2010/0213941 A1), hereinafter referred to as Driesel. With reference to claim 20, Driesel teaches A sensor element for checking a flat-surface data carrier having a spin resonance feature (Fig. 3 would be capable of checking a flat-surface data carrier), with a magnetic core with an air gap into which the flat-surface data carrier can be inserted for testing (Fig. 3, 320, 340), a polarization device for generating a static magnetic flux in the air gap (Fig. 3, 330), and a resonator device for exciting the spin resonance feature of the data carrier to be tested in the air gap (Fig. 3, 320, ¶0086), wherein the resonator device contains at least two stripline resonators, which are designed and configured to be operated at different excitation frequencies (¶0132).
With reference to claim 21, Driesel further teaches the stripline resonators of the resonator device are arranged in the form of a one-dimensional array (Fig. 2). With reference to claim 22, Driesel further teaches the stripline resonators of the resonator device all have different resonance frequencies (¶0132).
With reference to claim 24, Driesel further teaches the air gap is bounded by two plane-parallel pole surfaces of the magnetic core (Fig. 3). With reference to claim 25, Driesel further teaches the stripline resonators are geometrically similar, that is, they have the same shape but different sizes (¶0099). With reference to claim 26, Driesel further teaches the stripline resonators are designed with a flat surface having a main extension plane which is plane-parallel to at least one of the pole surfaces of the magnetic core bounding the air gap (Fig. 4). With reference to claim 27, Driesel further teaches the sensor element has a modulation device for generating a time-varying magnetic modulation field in the air gap, wherein the modulation frequency at the location of each of the stripline resonators of the resonator device is equal (¶0092). With reference to claim 28, Driesel further teaches the modulation device is formed by a single modulation coil arranged in the air gap (Fig. 3, ¶0092). With reference to claim 29, Driesel further teaches the stripline resonators are designed with a flat surface having a main extension plane which is perpendicular to the direction of the static magnetic flux generated by the polarization device (Fig. 4). With reference to claim 31, Driesel further teaches the sensor element has a ramp coil for generating a ramp function of the static magnetic flux (Fig. 3, 80). With reference to claim 32, Driesel further teaches the stripline resonators of the resonator device form a multi-track arrangement with a plurality of parallel tracks, in which each track is formed by a one-dimensional array of stripline resonators (Fig. 20). With reference to claim 33, Driesel further teaches A test device for testing a flat-surface data carrier having a sensor element according to claim 20, and either a plurality of signal sources having different excitation frequencies, from which the stripline resonators of the resonator device are fed, or a single signal source having an excitation signal with a plurality of different frequency components, from which the stripline resonators are fed (Fig. 3). With reference to claim 34, Driesel further teaches the test device according to claim 33, having a transport device, which guides the flat-surface data carriers to be tested along a transport path through the air gap of the magnetic core, wherein the transport device is advantageously designed and configured for fast-running transport of the flat-surface data carriers to be tested along the transport path (Fig. 3, 340 is “advantageously designed and configured for fast-running transport of the flat-surface data carriers to be tested along the transport path”). With reference to claim 35, Driesel further teaches a method for testing a flat-surface data carrier having a spin resonance feature, by means of a sensor element or a test device according to claim 33, wherein in the method a flat data carrier to be tested is guided along a transport path through the air gap of the magnetic core of said sensor element, wherein a plurality of stripline resonators of the resonator device is located one after the other parallel to the transport path, a static magnetic flux is generated using the polarization device and a time-varying magnetic modulation field is generated in the air gap using a modulation device, and the resonator device is used to excite the spin resonance feature of the data carrier to be tested (Fig. 18, ¶0086). With reference to claim 37, Driesel further teaches the measured data are spatially resolved or spatially averaged (¶0086).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Driesel as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Hanada et al. (US 2018/0003784 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hanada. Driesel teaches all that is required as explained above, however is silent with regards to the polarization device generates a static magnetic flux in the air gap, which has substantially the same strength at the location of each of the stripline resonators in that the static magnetic flux at the location of the stripline resonators has a maximum deviation of 2%. Hanada teaches the polarization device generates a static magnetic flux in the air gap, which has substantially the same strength at the location of each of the stripline resonators in that the static magnetic flux at the location of the stripline resonators has a maximum deviation of 2% (¶0003, ¶0056-¶0058, it’s obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that having as homogenous static field as possible would lead to a maximum deviation of at most 2%). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Hanada with the method of Driesel so as to improve quality of the signals (Hanada, ¶0003).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30, 36 and 38 is 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:
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed "the air gap has a height of less than 10 mm" in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claims 30.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed " data carrier to be tested is guided past the consecutively located stripline resonators and a time series of measurements of the response signal of the spin resonance feature generated after each excitation is recorded by the stripline resonators, measurement data corresponding to the same measuring spot are identified from the time series of measurements of the stripline resonators, spectral information relating to the spin resonance feature is derived from the identified measurement data, and the data carrier is evaluated on the basis of the derived spectral information" in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 35.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed " a spatially homogeneous ramping field is superimposed on the static magnetic flux so that the total static magnetic flux in the air gap varies over time between a minimum value and a maximum value, the spectral information is derived from the identified measurement data, taking into account the field strength of the static magnetic flux at the respective measurement time, and based on the derived spectral information, the authenticity of the tested data carrier and/or the membership of the tested data carrier of one of a plurality of data carrier classes with different spectral signatures is determined" in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 38.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stevenson et al. (US 6,750,756 B2) teaches a use of isotopes to provide information to an article.
Rapaport et al. (US 5,986,550) teach a method for labeling, verification and/or identifying and device for implementing the method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY H CURRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7505. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/GREGORY H CURRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights