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 .
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) 20-27 and 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Giuseppe et al. (US 2014117988).
Re claim 20, Giuseppe et al. teaches (figure 5D, 22+):
a sensor clement (see e.g. figure 5D, figures 1A-1D and paragraph 0105) for testing a planar data carrier having a spin-resonance feature, comprising
a magnetic core 12 having an air gap (see figure 5D) into which the planar data carrier can be inserted for testing purposes ( e.g. above part 1 in figure 5D; see also paragraph 0105),
a polarization device (34) for generating a static magnetic flux in the air gap (32), and
a resonator device 6 (paragraph 0087) for exciting the spin-resonance feature of the data carrier to be tested in the air gap,
wherein the resonator device 6 contains a plurality of stripline resonators (see FIG. 11-12, 22) which are designed and configured to operate independently of one another at the same excitation frequency ( see paragraph 0187, the same excitation frequency is implicit), and
the polarization device 12 generates a homogeneous magnetic flux in the air gap, so that the static magnetic flux for each pair of stripline resonators of the resonator device has substantially the same field strength at the position of a first stripline resonator as at the position of a second stripline resonator (implicit; see figure 5D).
Re claim 21, Giuseppe et al. teaches that the stripline resonators are interpreted to operate at the same excitation frequency.
Re claims 22-23, FIG. 22 shows different sources and a 1d stripline resonator array.
Re claim 24, the striplines are interpreted to cover the width of the data carrier (FIG. 1A+ )in order to process the sample.
Re claim 25, FIG. 22 teaches such limitations.
Re claim 26-27, FIG. 5D shows parallel pole surfaces .
Re claim 30, FIG. 5D teaches such limitations.
Re claim 31, paragraph [0151]+ teaches 5-10mm.
Re claim 32, paragraph [0105]+ teaches such limitations.
Re claim 33, paragraph [0116]+ teaches such limitations.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 28-29 and 34-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giuseppe et al., as discussed above, in view of Jerome et al. (US 5149946).
Re claims 28-29, though silent to specifically teaching a time varying modulation field in the air gap, such limitations are generally known in the art.
Nonetheless, Jerome et al. teaches such limitations at FIG.3+2 with field Hm that varies over time in the air gap with resonator 120/130.
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for a single frequency resonator modulated field for controlled field output.
Re claim 34-35, though Giuseppe et al. is silent to the transport device, Jerome et al. teaches such limitations at col 5, lines 57- col 6, line 4, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to combine the teachings for automated transport for convenience and consistency as known in the art.
Re claim 36, the teachings of Giuseppe et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the flat transport device and modulation device.
Jerome et al. teaches a magnetic core with an air gap delimited by two pole case of the magnetic core with a polarization device (111/112) for creating magnetic flux in the air gap as they are fed from low frequency generator 112 in either fixed (only one EPR substance to be detected) or adjustable in frequency (when several SPR substances are to be detected. Resonance unit 120 excites the spin resonance feature of a data carrier to be tested in the gap such as paper of value containing spectral responsive substances when subjected to electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR)/ electron spin resonance (EST) via a source 130. Jerome et al. teaches in col 11, lines 38-44 that a banknote is inserted into the gap (FIG. 2 and col 8, lines 6-13) with the polarization device (FIG. 2) generating the flux H0 and a modulation device 112 that generates magnetic modulation field Hm and the resonator device (FIG. 2, 120/13) excites the features of the carrier to be tested.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to control the magnetic flux generation.
Re claims 37-38, the testing is interpreted as occurring by excitation as discussed above, and a transport path has been discussed above re claims 34+ wherein single or multitrack scanning occurs via striplines.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights