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 12/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 16-30 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.
Regarding claim 16, the phrases "can be detected" and “can be located” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, the phrases "can be introduced" in lines 8 and 14 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 26, the phrases "can be reflected” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 28, the phrases "can be tested” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 29, the phrases "can be located” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 30, the phrases "can be used’ renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
It has been held that the recitation that an element “can” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. Claims 17, 19-25 and 27 are rejected by virtue of their dependence.
The terms “approximately” and “sufficiently small” in claim 16 are the relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “sufficiently small” in claims 17, 19, 22-26 and 29 are the relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. The above terms are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The above-mentioned terms and dimensions are invalid as indefinite since there is nothing in the application to tell public what to do to avoid infringement in this respect or where infringement begins; rule against indefiniteness is not only a technical one, but is to protect public and keep patentee from taking an advantage to which he is not entitled. Claims 18, 20, 21, 25, 27 and 28 are rejected by virtue of their dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masuda (JP 4283649 B2; 06-24-2029; the prior art provided by applicant).
With respect to claim 16, Masuda teaches a device for testing a flat sample (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089) wherein the device provides a target measurement plane (S) for the flat sample, into which the flat sample can be introduced for testing, and has an optical sensor module (21) for optically testing the flat sample, said module being designed to capture a measurement signal of the flat sample corresponding to the intensity of an optical radiation, including remission or luminescence light, of the flat sample when the sample is located in the target measurement plane or at least approximately in the target measurement plane, while the flat sample is transported along a transport path past the sensor module, and wherein the sensor module (21) is located at a module distance away from the target measurement plane (E), and between the sensor module and the flat sample a window (55) is arranged, through which both illumination/excitation light irradiated onto the flat sample and the optical radiation from the flat sample reaching the sensor module, including remission or luminescence light, is transmitted, wherein while the measurement signal is being captured the flat sample can be located at a measurement position which is separated from the target measurement plane by a measurement distance deviation (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089),
PNG
media_image1.png
474
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the window (55) is located at a window distance away from the target measurement plane and the window distance is selected to be sufficiently small that the measurement signal of the flat sample in the target measurement plane is increased by a retroreflection effect of the window in comparison to a corresponding measurement signal of the flat sample located in the target measurement plane occurring without the retroreflection effect, and that the module distance of the sensor module from the target measurement plane is selected to be sufficiently small that a signal variation of the measurement signal of the flat sample as a function of the measurement distance deviation in the region of the target measurement plane is reduced by the retroreflection effect of the window compared to a signal variation of the measurement signal of the flat sample occurring without the retroreflection effect (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089).
PNG
media_image2.png
221
291
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
183
173
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17, Masuda teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089), wherein the module distance of the sensor module from the target measurement plane is selected to be sufficiently small for the signal variation of the measurement signal as a function of the measurement distance deviation, in the region of the target measurement plane in the range of +/−1 mm around the target measurement plane, to be reduced by the retroreflection effect of the window, by at least 50% compared to a signal variation occurring without the retroreflection effect (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089).
With respect to claim 18, Masuda teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089), wherein the sensor module and the window are arranged and designed in such a way that the following contribute to the retroreflection effect of the window, that a portion of the illumination/excitation light is reflected or scattered at the flat sample toward the window and then reflected back from the window to the flat sample and causes the flat sample to emit additional optical radiation, including additional remission or luminescence light, which is reflected or scattered in the direction of the window in such a way that it can be detected by the sensor module through the window and contributes to the measurement signal, and/or that the optical radiation emitted by the flat sample, including remission or luminescence light caused by the illumination/excitation light, strikes the window and a component of the optical radiation, including the remission or luminescence light, is reflected back to the flat sample again at the window and then reflected or scattered again at the flat sample in the direction of the window in such a way that it can be detected by the sensor module through the window and contributes to the measurement signal (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089).
With respect to claim 19, Masuda teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089), wherein the measurement signal of the flat sample as a function of the measurement distance deviation has a maximum value and wherein the module distance of the sensor module (21) from the target measurement plane is selected to be sufficiently small that the maximum value of the measurement signal would be reached at a maximum measurement position of the flat sample which is located outside the target measurement plane, and which lies on the side of the target measurement plane which faces away from the sensor module (21) (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089).
With respect to claim 20, Masuda teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089), wherein the device or the sensor module is designed to direct the illumination/excitation light onto the flat sample in the form of converging light beams, wherein at least some of the converging light beams of the illumination/excitation light run at an angle of at least 10° to one another (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089).
With respect to claim 21, Masuda teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089), wherein the device or the sensor module is designed to direct the illumination/excitation light onto the flat sample at an angle that deviates from the sample normal of the flat sample (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089).
With respect to claim 22, Masuda teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089), wherein the module distance of the sensor module from the target measurement plane is selected to be sufficiently small that the measurement signal of the flat sample as a function of the measurement distance deviation, for measurement positions of the flat sample having a measurement distance deviation lying in a range of +/−1.0 mm around the target measurement plane, has a maximum signal variation of 10% with respect to the measurement signal in the target measurement plane (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089).
With respect to claim 23, Masuda teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089), wherein the module distance of the sensor module from the target measurement plane is selected to be sufficiently small that the measurement signal of the flat sample as a function of the measurement distance deviation, for measurement positions of the flat sample over the entire section between the window and the target measurement plane, has a maximum signal variation of 10% with respect to the measurement signal in the target measurement plane (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089).
With respect to claim 24, Masuda teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089), wherein in order to capture the measurement signal the flat sample is transported along a transport path past the sensor module and the transport path of the flat sample is mechanically bounded on both sides, at least in the region of the measurement position of the flat sample, and has a transport path width, and the module distance of the sensor module from the target measurement plane is selected to be sufficiently small that the measurement signal of the flat sample as a function of the measurement distance deviation over the entire transport path width has a maximum signal variation of 15% with respect to the measurement signal in the target measurement plane (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089).
With respect to claim 25, Masuda teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089), wherein the sensor module is assigned a target module distance to the target measurement plane, at which the sensor module would deliver a maximum measurement signal of the flat sample without including the retroreflection effect of the window, and the module distance of the sensor module from the target measurement plane is selected to be at least 0.3 mm less than the target module distance (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089).
With respect to claim 26, Masuda teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089), wherein the device has an additional window on the side of the target measurement plane which faces away from the window, from which illumination/excitation light transmitted through the flat sample can be reflected back onto the flat sample, and the additional window is located at a further window distance away from the target measurement plane and the further window distance is selected to be sufficiently small that the measurement signal of the flat sample is increased by an additional retroreflection effect of the additional window, by at least 2% compared to a measurement signal occurring without the additional retroreflection effect of the additional window (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089).
With respect to claim 27, Masuda teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089), wherein the device is a value document processing device, which is designed for testing flat samples in the form of value documents by means of the optical sensor module, for testing the authenticity or the quality of the tested value documents (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089).
With respect to claim 28, Masuda teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089), wherein the device is designed for producing value documents or for producing semi-finished products used in the production of value documents, in which device the value documents or semi-finished products can be tested by means of the optical sensor module (21) (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089).
With respect to claim 29, Masuda teaches a method for testing a flat sample by means of an optical sensor module, which is designed for optically testing the flat sample, wherein the method is carried out by a device as claimed in claim 16 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089), wherein for optically testing the flat sample the sensor module (21) captures a measurement signal of the flat sample corresponding to the intensity of an optical radiation, including remission or luminescence light, of the flat sample when the sample is located in a target measurement plane specified for the flat sample, or at least approximately in the target measurement plane, while the flat sample is transported along a transport path past the sensor module, wherein the sensor module (21) is located at a module distance away from the target measurement plane, and between the sensor module and the flat sample a window is arranged, through which both illumination/excitation light irradiated onto the flat sample and the optical radiation from the flat sample reaching the sensor module (21) (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089), including remission or luminescence light, is transmitted, wherein while the measurement signal is being captured the flat sample can be located at a measurement position which is separated from the target measurement plane by a measurement distance deviation, wherein the window is located at a window distance away from the target measurement plane and the window (55) distance is selected to be sufficiently small that the measurement signal of the flat sample is increased by a retroreflection effect of the window in comparison to a corresponding measurement signal of the flat sample located in the target measurement plane occurring without the retroreflection effect, and that the module distance of the sensor module from the target measurement plane is selected to be sufficiently small that a signal variation of the measurement signal as a function of the measurement distance deviation in the region of the target measurement plane is reduced by the retroreflection effect of the window (55) compared to a signal variation of the measurement signal of the flat sample occurring without the retroreflection effect (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089).
With respect to claim 30, Masuda teaches the method as claimed in claim 29 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089), wherein the flat sample is a value document or a semi-finished product used in the production of value documents, or a value document sheet comprising multiple value documents or semi-finished products, or a substrate web for value document substrates, which can be used for producing value document substrates (see abstract; Figs. 1, 3 and 6B; paragraphs 0009 and 0089).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kondo et al. (US PAP 2023/0124819 A1) teaches optical measurement device and method (see abstract; Figs. 1-29; paragraph 0060).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRAKLI KIKNADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6494. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, David J. Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
Irakli Kiknadze
/IRAKLI KIKNADZE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/I.K./ July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights