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 .
Claims 1 – 10 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 1-5, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine et al. (US 2009/0214804 A1; pub. Aug. 27, 2009) in view of Choucair (US 2022/0081302 A1; pub. Mar. 17, 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Levine et al. disclose: A marker for being captured imaged by a thermal camera for thermal imaging (para. [0010]), wherein: the marker comprises a thermal-conductive material (Abstract, para. [0004], [0010]-[0011]);
a surface of the marker indicates a pattern formed by a combination of a first surface area and a second surface area (Abstract, para. [0004], [0010]-[0011]).
Levine et al. are silent about: the thermal-conductive material is a high-thermal-conductive material, the second surface area indicates a thermal emissivity that is higher than a thermal emissivity of the first surface area.
In a similar field of endeavor Choucair discloses: the thermal-conductive material is a high-thermal-conductive material (para. [0151], [0159], [0161]) motivated by the benefits for a cost-effective sensor (Choucair para. [0207]).
In light of the benefits for improved document security as taught by Choucair, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the high-thermal material of Choucair in the marker of Levine et al.
Choucair is silent about: the second surface area indicates a thermal emissivity that is higher than a thermal emissivity of the first surface area. In para. [0161] Choucair discloses materials with different thermal conductivity. The thermal conductivity of a material is inversely proportional to its emissivity. The higher the thermal conductivity the lower the emissivity. Therefore, one of ordinary skill could have derived the limitation using the teaching of para. [0161] of Choucair.
Regarding claim 2, Levine et al. and Choucair disclose: the first surface area of the marker comprises a first partial area,
the second surface area of the marker comprises a second partial area,
the marker comprises a first material and second material respectively made from types of high-thermal conductive materials,
the first material represents a base material continuously extending over the first partial area and the second partial area,
the first partial area comprises a surface of the first material as the first surface area,
the second partial area comprises a combination of the first material and the second material that is formed on the surface of the first material,
the second partial area comprises a surface of the second material as the second surface area, and
the second surface area indicates a light emissivity that is higher than the first surface area (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, because Levine et al. teach the thermal conductive material can be used making road signs & landing zone markers (Abstract, para. [0004]), multiple thermal conductive materials can be overlaid (para. [0010]-[0011]; Choucair teaches different high-thermal conductive (para. [0161], using the combined teachings of Levine et al. and Choucair, one of ordinary skill can combine high-thermal conductive materials separately, overlapping them fully or partially).
Regarding claim 3, Levine et al. and Choucair disclose: the first surface area of the marker comprises a first partial area,
the second surface area of the marker comprises a second partial area,
the marker comprises a first material and second material respectively made from types of high-thermal conductive materials,
the first material represents a base material continuously extending over the first partial area and the second partial area, the second partial area comprises a surface of the first material as the second surface area,
the first partial area comprises a combination of the first material and the second material formed on the surface of the first material,
the first partial area comprises a surface of the second material as the first surface area, and
the second surface area indicates a light emissivity that is higher than the first surface area (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Levine et al. and Choucair disclose: the first surface area of the marker comprises a first partial area,
the second surface area of the marker comprises a second partial area,
the marker comprises a base material made from the high-thermal- conductive material continuously extending over the first partial area and the second partial area,
the first surface area and the second surface area respectively comprise a surface of the base material, and at least either one of the first surface area or the second surface area comprises a surface that has been treated such that the second surface area indicates an emissivity of a light energy that is higher than the first surface area (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, Choucair discloses: the high-thermal-conductive material comprises a material of at least 100 W/mK (para. [0151], [0159], [0161]) motivated by the benefits for a cost-effective sensor (Choucair para. [0207]).
Regarding claim 8, Levine et al. and Choucair disclose: a temperature of the marker is distinct from a temperature of a surface area surrounding the marker (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Levine et al. and Choucair disclose: a result of the thermal imaging by the thermal camera distinguishes the first surface area of the marker from the second surface area of the marker based on emissivity of light energy from the marker and reflected heat by the marker (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2 because the claim does not recite any additional structure that further limits claim 2).
Claims 6-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine et al. (US 2009/0214804 A1; pub. Aug. 27, 2009) in view of Choucair (US 2022/0081302 A1; pub. Mar. 17, 2022) and further in view of Pettersson (US 2011/0008751 A1; pub. Jan. 13, 2011).
Regarding claim 6, the combined references are silent about: the first surface area comprises a material based on at least one of: blackbody paint, silicon nitride, or carbon graphite.
In a similar field of endeavor Pettersson discloses: the first surface area comprises a material based on at least one of: blackbody paint, silicon nitride, or carbon graphite (para. [0068]) motivated by the benefits for a durable marker.
In light of the benefits for a durable marker, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the material of Pettersson in the marker of Levine et al. and Choucair.
Regarding claim 7, the combined references are silent about: the second surface area comprises a material based on at least one of: copper, aluminum, zinc, gold, silver, or duralumin.
In a similar field of endeavor Pettersson discloses: the second surface area comprises a material based on at least one of: copper, aluminum, zinc, gold, silver, or duralumin (para. [0068]) motivated by the benefits for a durable marker.
In light of the benefits for a durable marker, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the material of Pettersson in the marker of Levine et al. and Choucair.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Levine et al., Choucair and Pettersson disclose: a color of the first material is distinct from a color of the second material (silicon nitride & aluminum have different color).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
