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 .
Priority
Priority claims to CN202211105673.4 and PCT/CN2023/110741 are acknowledged.
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.
1. The claims 1-10 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For example, but not limited to:
Claim 1 recites “method based on multi-layer identification code”, which should read “method based on a multi-layer identification code”. Furthermore, recited is pairing two codes that are associated, and examiner is unclear what pairing two codes which are already associated might mean, as the codes are already paired/associated, which are synonyms. Claim 2 recites: “the same association content” where no association content is previously recited, and “with different associated contents”, but “associated contents” is not previously recited.
Claim 3 recites “the first secret code and the second secret code” which lacks antecedent basis, and recites an identical limitation to claim 1, which does not further limit the claim, which is the last clause of both claims.
Claim 4 recites “the first secret code and the second secret code” which lacks antecedent basis, is formatted as multiple sentences or bears improper capitalization and/or punctuation, contains grammatically improper steps of “in addition”, which is not a step, and “…is covered to the local region” does not make grammatical sense.
Examiner is unable to fully examine the claims as presented due to the number and nature of the grammatical errors. However, examiner has found art which he believes most accurately applies to the supposed scope of the claims in order to expedite prosecution.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
2. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As discussed above, the clarity issues presented by the claims do not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the invention, as the specification similarly suffers from translation issues.
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.
3. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bourrieres (2022/0164616).
As to claims 1-10: Bourrieres teaches an anti-counterfeiting method based on a multi-layer identification code, which is characterized in the following steps:
within a set time period, pairing an anti-counterfeiting secret code and an anti-counterfeiting plain code that are associated (paragraphs 0085-0087, wherein the set time period is considered to be during the making step of the substrate);
providing the anti-counterfeiting secret code on a product;
and gluing and covering the anti-counterfeiting plain code to a local region or the whole region of the anti-counterfeiting secret code (figures 1b, 2a and 2b show element 20 upon a mask formed by adhesive obscuring the area of code 30, explained in paragraphs 0045-55, seen in figure 2b that the element 111 which obscures 30 by 113 bears element 20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TARDIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7810. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30-7:00. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: david.tardif@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G Lee can be reached on (571)272-2398. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
DAVID TARDIF
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DAVID TARDIF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2876
david.tardif@uspto.gov
/MICHAEL G LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876