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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, line 21, it appears that “layer 8” should be “layer 9”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14, 19, and 20 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.
Claim 14 is written as a dependent claim, but it does not specify a claim from which it depends.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected based on their dependencies, respectively.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Trassl et al. (2025/0144954).
Trassl discloses a security element, comprising: at least one region (2, Fig. 1) with structures (4, Fig. 1), wherein at least one color-tilting optical effect layer (7, Fig. 1, paragraph 0064) is provided which produces a color-tilting effect when viewed from a first face of the security element in the at least one first region, and the structures are covered over the entire surface or partially by the at least one color-tilting optical effect layer (7, Fig. 1), wherein the structures are coated with at least one layer (11, Fig. 1) made of at least one metal (paragraph 0059), wherein the at least one layer made of the at least one metal is arranged between the structures and the optical effect layer as an adhesion promoter layer.
Regarding claim 2, see paragraph 0027.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, see Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 7, see paragraph 0023.
Regarding claim 8, see paragraph 0010.
Regarding claim 9, see paragraph 0023.
Regarding claims 10 and 15-17, see paragraph 0025.
Regarding claim 13, see Fig. 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trassl et al. (2025/0144954).
Trassl discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Trassl does not disclose the aspect ratio of the structures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aspect ratio of the structures 0.05 to 3 because it has been held that optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trassl et al. (2025/0144954) in view of Fuhse et al. (2012/0319395).
Trassl discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Trassl does not disclose that the structures are an embossed lacquer layer. Fuhse teaches making the structures of a security element an embossed lacquer layer (paragraph 0134). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the structures disclosed by Trassl an embossed lacquer layer, as taught by Fuhse, as a matter of design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest an optical effect layer configured as a thin- film element that comprises at least one reflective layer and/or a second absorber layer, and wherein the spacer layer is arranged between the absorber layer and the reflective layer and/or the second absorber layer.
Claims 12 and 18 would be allowable based on their dependencies, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of each reference is explained below, unless the relevance is deemed to be readily apparent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C HOGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/GARY C HOGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
