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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of IDS filed on 10/30/24, 12/18/24, 7/16/25 & 12/4/25.
This application is a CON of 18/469,390 09/18/2023 now PAT 12,481,850 which is a CON of 17/686,012 filed on 03/03/2022 now PAT 11,809,950 which is a CON of 16/879,957 filed on 05/21/2020 now PAT 11,308,299 which is a CON of 16/081,593 filed on 08/31/2018 now PAT 10,685,199 which is a 371 of PCT/US2017/021117 filed on 03/07/2017 which has PRO 62/305,173 filed on 03/08/2016.
Claim Objections
Claim 142 is objected to because of the following informalities:
There is no antecedent basis for the limitations “the number of elements…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 130-134 and 136-149 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merkle (US 2017/0316294) in view of Schepers et al. (US 2011/0099117).
Re Claims 130 and 144: Merkle teaches tag and seal employing a micromachine artifact, which includes a suspension medium (¶ 43+); and elements suspended in the suspension medium, wherein the elements define a distribution of element properties that is detectable by a scanner system and forms a unique identifier of the authentication marker, and the elements comprise: a first subset of elements {herein the first and second subsets of the particle may be randomly distribute in an adhesive matrix}; and a second subset of elements that is distinguishable, by the scanner system, from the first subset of elements (see ¶ 6-7+).
Merkle fails to specifically teach a unique identifier of the authentication marker.
Schepers et al. teaches device, system and method for verifying the authenticity integrity and/or physical conditions of an item, which includes a unique identifier of the authentication marker (¶ 44+, 60-61+).
In view of Schepers et al.’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ into the teachings of Merkle a unique identifier of the authentication marker so as to store verification/authentication data and provide a means for attempting to access and retrieve specific information.
Re Claims 131-132, 145 and 147-148: Merkle as modified by Schepers et al. teaches method and apparatus, wherein the first subset of elements and the second subset of elements have respective sizes that are detectable by the scanner system (see fig.# 1B), wherein the respective sizes of the elements of at least one of the first subset and the second subset are on the order of millimeter, micrometer, or nanometer scales (see ¶ 7+).
Re Claims 133 and 149: Merkle as modified by Schepers et al. teaches method and apparatus, wherein elements of the first subset of elements are different types of structures than elements of the second subset of elements (see fig.# 1B).
Re Claim 134: Merkle as modified by Schepers et al. teaches method and apparatus, wherein types of structures of the first and second subset of elements include a crystalline particle structure {herein the micromachine artifact 110 is a monocrystalline or polycrystalline semiconductor material, such a silicon, germanium, or group III and group V elements, and there alloys}, a magnetic particle structure, a nanorod structure, a flake structure, a foil structure, a molecular structure exhibiting electron paramagnetism, or a molecular structure with finite electric dipole moment (¶ 36-40+).
Re Claims 136 and 146: Merkle as modified by Schepers et al. teaches method and apparatus, wherein the element properties include relative spatial orientations of respective elements (¶ 47+).
Re Claim 137: Merkle as modified by Schepers et al. teaches method and apparatus, wherein the element properties include a magnetic field {herein teaches Merkle teaches the term “machine-readable storage medium” shall accordingly be taken to include, but not be limited to, solid-state memories, and optical and magnetic media} formed by the elements (¶ 56+).
Re Claim 138: Merkle as modified by Schepers et al. teaches method and apparatus, wherein the element properties include element shape (¶ 33+).
Re Claim 139: Merkle as modified by Schepers et al. teaches method and apparatus, wherein the authentication marker is formed on a surface of an object (¶ 48+).
Re Claim 140: Merkle as modified by Schepers et al. teaches method and apparatus, wherein the authentication marker is formed within an object (¶ 48+).
Re Claim 141: Merkle as modified by Schepers et al. teaches method and apparatus, wherein the suspension medium is made of material that includes silicon, glass, thermoplastic, or thermosetting polymer (¶ 36+).
Re Claim 142: Merkle as modified by Schepers et al. teaches method and apparatus, wherein the number of elements is greater than one hundred {herein Merkle teaches a plurality of particles 105} (see fig.# 1A-1C; ¶ 33+).
Re Claim 143: wherein at least one of the first or second subset of the elements is not visible to the naked eye {herein The micromachine artifact 110C may be processed to be non-reflective to mimic the physical appearance of the hex shaped void 507 and be somewhat hidden} (¶ 42-43+).
Claim(s) 135 and 150 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merkle (US 2017/0316294) as modified Schepers et al. (US 2011/0099117) as applied to claim 130 above, and further in view of Janoff (US 2015/0060699).
The teachings of Merkle have been discussed above.
Merkle fails to specifically teach that elements of at least one of the first subset and the second subset are diamond particles.
Janoff teaches authentication system employing fluorescent diamond particles, wherein elements of at least one of the first subset and the second subset are diamond particles (¶ 69-79+).
In view of Janoff’s teachings, teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ into the teachings of Merkle that the elements of at least one of the first subset and the second subset are diamond particles so as to make it difficult to duplicate with substitute fluorescent materials. Such modification would be beneficial in authenticating the substrate by determining an infrared spectrum and thereby ascertaining the authentic nature of the substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bertranou et al. (US 2008/0128496) teaches method and apparatus for verification of items.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWYN LABAZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Mr. STEVE 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.
/EDWYN LABAZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876