DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “each of the lens sets comprises at least four lenses”, twice, the second iteration being redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-26 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 19, each recite a “no-profile lens” which is not defined by the Specification. A “no-profile lens” does not have a plain and ordinary definition, nor is it a known term in the art such that one or ordinary skill could ascertain its meaning. Thus, a definition or explanation in the Specification would be required.
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 1-26 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 19, each recite a “no-profile lens” which is indefinite. The term is not described by the Specification (see above). Furthermore, it appears to directly contradict the structure of a lens which requires a profile. Attempts to a take a plain and ordinary meaning of no-profile, thus directly conflict with the Drawings and any common assumptions about a lens, absent any disclosure in the Specification.
Claims 18 and 26 further confound, stating that the “flat or no-profile lenses are convex or concave” appear to further contradict, absent further disclosure in the Specification.
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 1-26 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 rejection 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. Raymond et al. further disclose that the lenses may be flat (at least on their top surfaces) (Fig. 4A-4B) and, as best can be determined, “no-profile” since they may be as thin as 12 µm (0008).
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 and 26, the claims are contradicting and indefinite, however, Raymond et al. appears to disclose the same structure of lenses in the Specification, as best can be determined.
In respect to claims 19-25, Raymond et al. disclose the claimed invention for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Raymond et al. (US 2015/0343830), Rich et al. (US 2019/0236887), Raymond et al. (US 7,480,100), and Stewart (GB 2,594,474).
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