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 .
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 23 and 24 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.
Regarding claim 23, the specification does not mention a “tie layer” so it is not understood to what this limitation refers.
Regarding claims 24, 25, and 28, the word “especially” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether the limitations following “especially” are required limitations.
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 16-19, 21, 25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chapeau et al. (AU 2016369458).
Chapeau discloses a security element for a document of value, comprising: a first concealed (claim 1: “invisible to visible light”) motif region (2, Fig. 4) having a first luminescent layer (page 8, line 13) having at least a first excitation wavelength in the UV-A range (page 8, lines 14-16); and a second concealed motif region (3, Fig. 4)having a second luminescent layer (page 8, line 13) having at least a second excitation wavelength in the UV-A range (page 8, lines 14-16) that differs from the at least one first excitation wavelength (page 9, lines 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 17, see page 2, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 18, Fig. 4 shows that the first and second luminescent layers have an at least partial mutual overlap.
Regarding claim 19, page 10, second paragraph discloses that the base can be made of paper, which is known to be at least partly opaque.
Regarding claim 21, Fig. 4 shows that the first layer and the second layer lie in a common plane region.
Regarding claim 25, see page 2.
Regarding claim 27, because the paper forms the base of the whole structure, it must inherently partly surround the first concealed motif region.
Regarding claim 28, the device disclosed by Chapeau can be called a patch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 22, 24, 26, and 30 is 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 20, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest an opaque region that comprises a metal layer wherein the metal layer comprises a relief structure that is an optically variable surface pattern.
Regarding claim 30, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest providing a metal layer comprising a relief structure that corresponds to an optically variable surface pattern.
Claims 22, 24, and 26 would be allowable based on their dependency, 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
Prosecution Insights