DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 15, and 18, each recite a “spot focus viewing angle” which is not defined by the Specification, nor is it a known term in the art. Although “spot focus” is in the Specification, “spot focus viewing angle” is not. The recitation “for each” spot focus viewing angle infers each of a definite set of spot focus directions, which are not described.
The amendment is merely a change in semantics. The limitation “at least one lens of each lens set focuses on only one whole pixel for each [per] spot focus viewing angle” is similarly not supported by the Specification
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 1-24 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.
Independent claims 1, 15, and 18, each recite “each of a definite set of spot focus viewing angles, which is unclear. As best can be construed by the Examiner, “each of” may be read as “each of the” which lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear how such spot focus directions are defined (see 35 USC 112(a), above) and how many “viewing angles” are within the set of claimed directions.
Applying the definition of the “spot focus viewing angle” as best can be assumed, Figure 2 shows a single “spot focus viewing angle” which provides focus from four different lens into four focus locations. However, Figure 3 clearly shows that whole pixels are not in the same regions in respect to each lens, thus at best, a small amount of “spot focus viewing angles” (out of the whole gamut of viewing angles) will actually result in a whole pixel focus from a single lens (see Figure below). Thus, the claim continues to be unclear, as most viewing angles will not result in a single whole pixel from any arbitrary angle “spot focus viewing direction”.
This was diagrammed in the rejection of the parent application:
PNG
media_image1.png
480
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This image provides a “spot focus viewing direction” which would represent a “LEFT UP FOCUS”. Although one lens of the lens set (top left) focuses on only one whole pixel, this is just one “spot focus direction”. The limitation at issue is the “for each” limitation, as detailed above.
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.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raymond et al. (US 2014/0177008).
In respect to claims 1-2, although unclear for the reasons detailed in the 35 USC 112 rejections above, Raymond et al. disclose an optical security element comprising: a lens array with a first side and an opposite second planar side, with a plurality of lenses 314 formed on the first side (Fig. 3B); an ink layer 320 proximate the second planar side (Fig. 3B); wherein the ink layer comprises an interlaced image including a matrix of image elements under a plurality of lens sets formed within the lens array; wherein each set of the plurality of lenses comprises at least a unit of four lenses (Fig. 4A, which shows an example portion of the lenses with 9 sets of 2x2 (equal number on each side) of four lenses per set);
At least one lens of the lens set focuses on a single whole pixel at a “spot focus direction”, defined as an angle which a whole pixel is viewable; any of the lines of sight shown in Figure 19 can be defined as “spot focus direction” in which at least one lens focuses on only one whole pixel 1918.
In respect to the amended subject matter, Raymond discloses “at least one lens of each lens set focuses on only one whole pixel for each spot focus viewing angle” which is unclear as detailed above, however, the applicant construes this language to mean ““no lens can view more than one whole pixel per spot viewing direction”, which is clearly disclosed: Raymond discloses that the focus of the lenses is equalivant to a pixel (0099), thus two pixels would never be focused from any direction, under a particular lens.
In respect to claim 3, Raymond et al. disclose that the image elements 1918 in the matrix are arranged in non-sequential order in two interlacing axes (0104; claim 33).
In respect to claims 4 and 5, Raymond et al. disclose a “mismatch” between a resolution and a lens space of each of the lens sets, whereby the mismatch is evenly divided frames (image elements) under any one of the lenses and the interlaced image is configured such that image elements may be positioned in an area between adjacent lenses (Fig. 19).
In respect to claim 6, Raymond et al. disclose that the non-sequential order is configured to place the image elements under adjacent ones of the lenses such that the placed image elements are within at least five within a sequential order: e.g. 6, 4, 2, 3, 7, 5, and 1, wherein all numbers are with at least 5 within a normal sequence (0104).
In respect to claim 7, Raymond et al. disclose a large number of configurations of the arbitrary claim language, including a 2x2 lens set on one side and a larger 4x4 lens set on a second side (Fig. 4A).
In respect to claim 8, Raymond et al. disclose that the lenses can be round or square (0107; Figs. 3A-4B).
In respect to claims 9 and 10, Raymond et al. disclose that the lenses may have a thickness below 200 µm (and as low as 12 µm) (0008); the resolution of the interlaced image may be greater than 5000 DPI (over 25,000 DPI) (0009); and it is readily inferred from Figure 19 that a “viewing angle” is less than about 58 degrees (e.g. 45 degrees) (0055).
In respect to claim 11, Raymond et al. discloses at least 100 images/frames (0057), and infers a very substantially amount more (DPI of over 25,000).
In respect to claims 12 and 13, Raymond et al. disclose that the lenses may be hot stamped with hot melt adhesive to an underlying substrate (0159), wherein the substrate may be a banknote “currency” (Abstract).
In respect to claim 14, Raymond et al. discloses that the lenses may be cast (0154), however this is a product-by-process limitation.
In respect to claims 15-17, Raymond et al. disclose the claimed invention for the reasons stated above.
In respect to claims 18-24, Raymond et al. disclose the claimed invention for the reasons stated above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendment has not changed anything substantial from the claim language, and it remains both unclear and unsupported for the reasons detailed in the 35 USC 112 rejections.
The applicant argues that “FIG. 2 shows lenses, for example lens 212, focusing only one pixel (image frames 213, 217, and 221) and different spot focus directions” which is incorrect. The Figure actually shows at a single “spot focus viewing angle” actually shows at least two lenses each focusing on two whole pixels (213/215).
The applicant contends that the claim language “at least one lens of each lens set focuses on only one whole pixel…does not limit each lens from seeing other parts of other pixels”, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language states that the at least one lens “focuses on only one whole pixel”. This language excludes other portions of pixels. If the applicant intends to mean that “no lens can view more than one whole pixel per spot viewing direction”, this should be explicitly stated in the claim.
In light of the 35 USC 112 rejections above, it is difficult to compare differences from Raymond. However, using the applicant’s own argument that the claim language means “no lens can view more than one whole pixel per spot viewing direction”, this is fully disclosed by Raymond (Fig. 19). Raymond discloses this feature as detailed above.
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 KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Daniel Troy, can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
