DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-11 are withdrawn (and claims 15-20 have been cancelled) from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/10/26.
Group II: Figures 11-13 were elected.
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 1-3, 12-14, 21-22, and 24-25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (IN 2020-21003156) in view of Spinks (WO 2012/049514).
In respect to claim 1, Patel discloses a security system comprising: one or more first planchettes and one or more second planchettes; each of the first and second planchettes having a first planchette surface with a first microprinting and a second (opposite) surface with a second microprinting (0012).
Patel discloses that the first and second microprinting are of different colors (Abstract; 0036) but does not disclose that the multiple colors are different UV-reactive colors. However, Spinks teaches a very similar system also utilizing planchettes that have different color on each side (Pg. 3, 12-16) and further that each color may be a different UV-reactive color (Pg. 3, 23-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to select the first and second colors taught in Patel as UV-reactive colors in view of Spinks to utilize the latent effect of UV-reactive colors. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely, utilizing UV-reactive colors to provide a latent security effect (not visible in visible light) as well as further security measures (devices needed to verify).
In respect to claims 2, 3, 22, and 25, Patel discloses that the planchettes are created by printing microprint in linear arrays, and then cutting the sheet into “small fibers or shapes”. There is no disclosure or method of precise alignment to assure the microprints are the same, and it is readily ascertained by one of ordinary skill that a cutting of these shapes from the linear microprints will result in different microprinting placement across different planchettes (with only the precise and cumbersome task of aligning all microprint with the shapes, which is not disclosed or suggested, being the alternative).
In respect to claims 12-14, Patel in view of Spinks teaches different fluorescent microprinting colors, which are checked with different light wavelengths for verification.
In respect to claims 21 and 24, Patel does not explicitly disclose that the microprinting across first and/or second planchettes is identical, however, it would be readily inferred that the microprinting comprises a repeating number or text sequence, as is well-known in the art. Regardless, it would have been obvious to provide identical repeated number or text for the microprinting. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely, providing the microprint as repeating material (to have identical numbers across planchettes) as not providing a repeating number or text sequence completely ruins the point of identifiers on each individual planchette, which is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (IN 2020-21003156) in view of Spinks (WO 2012/049514) as applied to claims 22 and 25 above, and further in view of Rosset (US 2010/0001506).
Patel in view of Spinks substantially teach the claimed invention, but do not disclose that the planchettes are cut into hexagonal shapes, however, Rosset teaches a similar invention wherein planchettes with microprinting (voids) are placed on a document (Fig. 4); the planchettes may have any desired shape, including hexagonal (0019). It would have been obvious to provide the planchettes taught in Patel and Spinks as hexagonal in shape in view of Rosset as a matter of design choice since matters relating to ornamentation only, which have no mechanical function, cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). The shape (design) of the planchettes does not affect their use, only there visual impact.
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