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 § 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 11, 12, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lochbihler (DE 10 2014 018 551 A1).
Lochbihler discloses a security element (Fig. 1) comprising: a structured layer (14, 15, Fig. 2) comprising a base surface and recesses recessed or protrusions elevated relative to the base surface (11, 12, Fig. 2), and a reflector layer (paragraph 0043) arranged on the structured layer, wherein the recesses or protrusions are formed as color-generating nanostructures with respect to their dimensions along the base surface (paragraphs 0015-0018), their vertical extension perpendicular to the base surface and their arrangement on the base surface, wherein the structured layer comprises a plurality of areas providing a colored motif or image, the areas forming pixels (claims 1-3, 7-9), wherein in each of the several areas the vertical extension of the recesses or protrusions varies along a direction according to a function that does not have a constant value (claim 1, Fig. 2), so that in each of the several areas in top view a color which is produced by the variation of the vertical extension is a mixed color (paragraphs 6, 26).
Regarding claim 12, see Fig. 2 and note that the different areas have different heights and depths, and will therefore result in different functions.
Regarding claim 14, see Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 19, see paragraph 0056.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochbihler (DE 10 2014 018 551 A1) In view of Najiminaini et al. (2018/0170093).
Lochbihler discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, the recesses or protrusions disclosed by Lochbihler appear to be uniform. Najiminaini teaches making the vertical extension of recesses or protrusions increase or decrease along a direction according to a gradient. See Fig. 2(B) and paragraph 0007. 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 vertical extension of recesses or protrusions disclosed by Lochbihler increase or decrease along a direction according to a gradient, as taught by Najiminaini, in order to make each pixel provide band pass filtering in a specific spectral range.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lochbihler (DE 10 2014 018 551 A1) In view of Hiszpanski et al. (2022/0057551).
Lochbihler discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, the areas disclosed by Lochbihler are not comprised of inclined mirror surfaces. Hiszpanski teaches providing inclined mirror surfaces that differe in shape and/or inclination from one area to another. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the areas disclosed by Lochbihler with inclined mirror surfaces, as taught by Hiszpanski, in order to produce different colors and visual effects.
Regarding claim 17, because the mirror surfaces are applied to the protrusions, it is inherent that as the spacing of the mirror surface from the base increases or decreases, the vertical extension of the protrusion increases or decreases.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 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 16, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a structure of the type recited in which the inclined mirror surfaces follow a gradient.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a structure of the type recited in which the microstructure causes a bulging effect.
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