DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
The applicant elected Group V: Figs. 26-30 and subsequently amended claims. Claims 2 and 6-12 are cancelled. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/11/26.
Claims 19-26 are drawn to Group VI: Figs. 31-32. Claim 1 is drawn to “randomly arranged concave portions of convex portions” and Claim 19 is drawn to protrusions. The only embodiment with both features is Group VI. Thus, Claims 19-26 are withdrawn.
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, 3-5, 13-15, and 17-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsui et al. (JP 2007-168356) (See NPL for English Translation).
In respect to claims 1 and 17, Matsui et al. disclose a display comprising a first portion 20A and a second portion 10A, the portions being capable of being spaced apart then placed in overlap, via a folded and unfolded configuration “deformed” (Fig. 4); the first portion and second portion include first and second regions, the first regions having a shape extending in a first direction and alternately and regularly spaced in a second direction intersection with the first direction (Fig. 2); a printed latent image “moiré pattern” is not identifiable until the first portion is superimposed on the second portion (“first state”), and can include an image e.g. characters (Fig. 4). (0049; Fig. 4); the first regions of the first portion may be made by roughening of the surface in those regions, thus creating “light-scattering” regions which are readily inferred to “hav[e] randomly arranged concave or convex portion” (0034). The light-scattering regions naturally allow provide for less transparency than the regions without a light-scattering property, thus the second regions (non-scattering) allow light to emerge with a higher intensity.
In respect to claim 3, Matsui et al. disclose that the display is on a carrier which may be a polymer (plastic) (0034).
In respect to claim 4, Matsui et al. disclose line widths of 30-500 μm, wherein the line width and spacing between is equal, thus, periods of 60-1000 μm (0026).
In respect to claim 5, Matsui et al. disclose a band-shaped region having first to fourth sub-regions, wherein each of the first and second sub-regions have a first color (shaded on page) and the third and fourth sub-regions have a second color (white on page); the first and third sub-regions are arranged in a width direction (top row) and the second and fourth sub-regions are arranged in the width direction (second row) and the first and second sub-regions are at different positions in the width direction (Fig. 7).
In respect to claim 13, Matsui et al. disclose that the width direction of the plurality of band-shaped regions is perpendicular to the “second direction” and thus “inclined” (see claim 1). Furthermore, the second state is a user-defined state of bending the display, wherein an oblique angle is possible.
In respect to claims 14, 15, and 18, Matsui et al. disclose that the display is a sheet which is folded from the first state to the second state (Fig. 3) and has a “substantially square shape” (0033) as any slight deviation from a square e.g. substantially is a rectangle, which one of ordinary skill would understand to include a rectangle, with the second direction and width direction being parallel to a long side of the display (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.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al. (JP 2007-168356) (See NPL for English Translation) in view of Hersh et al. (U 2006/0003295).
Matsui et al. substantially disclose the claims, including providing a banknote as the display, however, they do not disclose using a booklet as the display. However, Hersh et al. teach a similar first and second portions which are similarly overlapped to form a moiré latent image. Banknotes, checks, and other similar planar articles to Matsui et al. are disclosed, in addition to passports (booklets). 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, selecting a known suitable document substrate for a security feature.
Claims 21 and 24 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al. (JP 2007-168356) (See NPL for English Translation).
Matsui et al. discloses a rectangle, as would be readily gleaned by one of ordinary skill in the art, however, does not explicitly disclose a rectangle. However, Matsui et al. further disclose stocks, bonds, gift certificates, etc. (0001), which one of ordinary skill readily ascertains to include rectangular formats. 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, selecting a rectangular document to provide the display upon with absolutely no unexpected result. As long as the shape allows the document to be folded over itself, a rectangle is an obvious choice for a display shape, with no change in the invention concept.
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