DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-7 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lass et al. (US 4,766,026) in view of Lister (US 2019/0275824).
In respect to claims 1-2, Lass et al. disclose a first transparent substrate layer 21; a second transparent substrate layer 22; and an intervening substrate 18 between the first and second substrate layer 21 and 22, including an intervening region 24 (Col. 7, 48-62; Fig. 8); the first and second substrate layers are both laser-engravable in a manner to form a visual dynamic pattern when a viewing angle changes (Figs. 3a-3b & 5a-5b), both a first image 10 in the first transparent region and a second image 11 in the second transparent region (laser-engraved) (Figs. 2 & 10).
Lass et al. do not disclose that the second image includes a depth map having different density in portions that correspond to regions of depth or distance in the first image, however, Lister teaches a similar invention wherein a similar line screen may form a first image 25 on a first side of an intervening layer 21 and a second image 7 may interact with the first image across the intervening layer (Fig. 4(d)). Lister further teaches that the second image 7 comprises different densities which correspond to different depths as effectuated by the first image layer, causing a visual dynamic pattern (0073; Fig. 3d). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second image taught in Lass et al. to include a depth map having different densities corresponding to different depths in view of Lister to create the illusion of depth for representation of a 3D image (Abstract).
In respect to claims 3 and 4, Lass et al. disclose that the intervening layer 18 may be opaque with a transparent plug 24 inserted in a cutout therein (Col. 7, 48-62; Fig. 8); Lister further teaches that the second image may further comprise colored information 9 printed with the second image 7, the information (0099; Fig. 4d).
In respect to claims 5 and 6, Lass et al. disclose that the intervening layer may have a thickness of 0.3 mm while first and second substrate layers have a thickness of 0.1 mm (Col. 6, 55-63; Fig. 10).
In respect to claim 7, the first laser-engraved image may include personalized data printed in lines (Col. 6; 3-8). Figure 4-5b show a particular way of utilizing the personalized data in parallax with printed lines.
In respect to claims 15-16 and 19-20, Lass et al. in view of Lister teach the claimed invention for the reason stated above. The “third image” is analogous to the colored image (claims 3-4), which may be provided on the intervening (“spacing”) layer 21, which would naturally translate to application to the plug (which is flush with this layer, Lass et al.).
In respect to claim 17, Lass et al. further disclose providing printed a printed image (e.g. name 2, account number 3), surrounding the transparent regions of the security element 6 (Fig. 1).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lass et al. (US 4,766,026) and Lister (US 2019/0275824) as applied to claim 1, and further in view Lim et al. (US 2015/0283847)
Lass et al. and Lister substantially disclose the claimed configuration, with the intervening portion having a transparent plug rather than the first and second substrates. However, Lim et al. teach a similar invention which utilizes plugs for forming transparent regions in opaque substrates. Specifically, a first substrate layer 25 including a first transparent region formed of a cutout filled by a transparent plug 27 and a second substrate layer 26 including a second transparent region formed of a cutout filled by a transparent plug 28 (Fig. 2B).
The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Both the general structures of Lass et al. and Lim teach two various methods of creating a transparent window for security in similar documents with similar purposes. Providing the known layer construction in Lim in lieu of the known construction of Lass, would not affect the invention concept of the image layers, nor would it provide an unexpected result to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 12-14 are allowed.
In respect to independent claim 8, none of the cited prior art anticipates or renders obvious all limitations of the claim, particularly, “the first transparent, laser-markable region and the second transparent region are only partially overlapping” and further the four particular locations of the two printed images, the laser-engraved image, and the “second image”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/26 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
In respect to the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 8-10 and 12-14, the amendment successfully distinguishes from the prior art for the reasons stated above.
In respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-7 and 15-21, the applicant contends that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Lister to combine with Lass because they teach fundamentally different methods and it would not be possible to combine Lister with Lass” which is not persuasive.
The applicant attempts to support this contention by stating that “Lister teaches the use of lenses to create the images” however this is not persuasive. The Office Action above explicitly references Figure 4(d) which does not use lenses. Lister states that “FIGS. 4(a) to (d) show exemplary cross-sections of security devices 20 formed in accordance with embodiments of the invention” (Col. 17, 8-10) thus the referenced Figure is clearly an exemplary embodiment. The applicant further states that “Lister describes use of masking elements [Fig. 4(d)] but then explains why they should not be used” which is not factual. Lister simply states that the previously embodiments of Figs. 4(a)-4(c) are preferred, due to higher reflection, which does not obviate a clear disclosure of a lens-less device being an optional embodiment.
The applicant further attempts to support the contention by stating that “one of ordinary skill in the art and industry would NOT look to Lister and would NOT adopt the teachings of Lister as the splitting of the image into many layers described in Lister would be extremely cost-prohibitive and would severely constrain the architecture of the security document” which completely mischaracterizes the invention of Lister. Lister does not disclose “the use of so many layers to achieve their 3D effect” as alleged by the applicant. Lister prints different areas of a single layer with line screens of differing pitch/density as highlighted in the Office Action. This single layer could be utilized simply with the substrate structure of Lass, with none of the complications alleged by the application from “so many layers”.
Arguments against other 35 USC 103 rejections rely on the arguments above, and thus are not persuasive for the same reasons detailed above.
The 35 USC 112 rejection has been obviated by argument.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights