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 § 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.
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.
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(s) 1 and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell et al. (US 2020/0311452) (“McConnell”), and further in view of Radvan et al. (Multi-step approach for characterization of artworks based on hyperspectral imaging and complementary techniques, 2018 11th International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE), IEEE DOI 10.1109/DeSE.2018.00025)(“Radvan”) and Nelson et al. (US 2005/0018013)(“Nelson”).
With regards to claim 1, McConnell discloses a method for creating an identification for an object (Abstract; [0008]), comprising the steps of:
- performing a measurement by X-ray spectroscopy ([0030]; “…multi-spectral imaging of the certain point or region of the object could include acquiring…. (4) an image within the X-ray spectrum (e.g., soft X-ray, hard X-ray, or both),…”)([0035]; “ Chemical sampling can include noninvasive, non-destructive techniques, such as … X-ray spectroscopy.” on a plurality of adjacent areas of at least a portion of the good ([0059]; “…one or more imagers …. to detect light waves from select regions of the artistic work 201 and capture such images in one or more spectra, e.g., … X-ray.”),
- generating a digital identity by uniquely associating said at least one image with the good ([0041]; “…at 150, such as creating an identification of the artistic work 101,...”)([0083]; “…generating a digital identification comprising a unique multi-spectral fingerprint, based on the specific characteristics, in which the digital identification solely corresponds to the object;…”)
McConnell teaches that the system uses a data acquisition platform to procure chemical samples for chemical analysis [0042]. McConnell further teaches of performing noninvasive chemical sampling technique utilizing X-ray spectroscopy [0056].
McConnell do not disclose;
the use of X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy, XRF,
generating respective fluorescence spectra representative of and identifying an elemental composition of the areas;
- selecting at least one chemical element;
- as a function of said spectra, generating a monochromatic image of the portion, wherein each area has a chromatic saturation proportional to a concentration of said chemical element within the respective area.
Radvan discloses X-ray spectrometry fluorescence (XRF) used for qualitative identification and quantitative determination of elemental composition of materials (pg. 119; 2nd col.; 2nd full para.). Further, the reference teaches of utilizing XRF, that combines hyperspectral data with multispectral analysis, to provide artwork authentication (Abstract). Radvan further teaches of performing XRF on twelve points on a painting (FIG. 5) having different chromatic areas Spectra was recorded for Pb, Zn, Cr, Hg, Ca, Fe, Ba, Bi, Cu, Se and Sr (pg. 121; 1st col. ; para. 2-3)(Fig. 5).
In view of Radvan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of McConnell with a method of utilizing X-ray spectrometry fluorescence (XRF) capable of performing qualitative identification and quantitative determination of elemental composition of a plurality of areas in a portion of the good. The motivation is to obtain the chemical spectra of different chromatic areas and use the acquired data for authentication and identification of the good.
Radvan teaches that gray tones that compose the X-rays can contain information relating to the presence of lead-based pigments or indicate different thicknesses of the painting layers, etc. (pg. 119; 1st col. ; C. X-ray digital radiography; 3rd para.)
Neither, McConnell nor Radvan specifically disclose generating a monochromatic image of the portion, wherein each area has a chromatic saturation proportional to a concentration of said chemical element within the respective area.
Nelson teaches of an authentication method (Abstract) that utilizes X-ray fluorescence (XRF) to identifying and perform elemental analysis on inorganic materials [0138][0139]. [0139] further teaches “The primary beam from a high energy source (i.e. X-ray tube) irradiates the material of interest, causing each chemical element present to emit secondary X-ray spectral lines that have wavelengths characteristic to that element (basis of qualitative analysis) and intensities related the concentration of each element present (basis of quantitative analysis). Furthermore, [0125] teaches “A readable identifier can be provided by the identification marking that provides the nanomorphic luminescence. In this case, the deposit of the indicator material in the swatch is modulated in one or more directions along the identification marking. In effect, the indicator material can be used as a dye or pigment to provide the indicia or symbology. Modulation can be monochromatic or gray scale, reflecting presence or absence or variable amounts of the indicator material along the identification marking. Finally, the reference teaches that the modulation can use gray-scale changes or color changes or changes in materials [0089].
In view of Nelson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify modified McConnell, to correlate the monochromatic or gray scale image saturation to the concentration of the chemical element within a good. The motivation is to determine the elemental concentration, within a good, relating to observed monochromatic/grayscale changes due to X-ray fluorescence spectra.
With regards to claim 4, modified McConnell discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one portion covers overall an entire surface of the good. (McConnell; [0059]; “The system 200 includes a multi-spectral imaging platform 210 configured to acquire image data in multiple light spectrums of an artistic work 201 along a coordinated array of sample regions of the artistic work 201.”)(Radvan; pg. 121; Fig. 5)
With regards to claim 5, modified McConnell discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of performing a measurement is carried out by performing a measurement on a plurality of portions of the good. (McConnell; [0061]; “…an example array of sample regions 205 of the artistic work 201 of which the multi-spectral imaging platform 210 obtains the multi-spectral image data from each sample region of the array 205.”)
With regards to claim 6, modified McConnell discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of selecting at least one chemical element is carried out by selecting an element from: Calcium, Iron, and Lead. (Radvan; Fig. 5; Main Elements 1)
With regards to claim 7, modified McConnell discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising the steps of
- selecting a plurality of chemical elements (see the rejection of claim 1);
- for each chemical element, generating a respective monochromatic image of the portion, wherein each area has a chromatic saturation proportional to the concentration of said chemical element within said area (see the rejection of claim 1);
- generating a digital identity by uniquely associating said plurality of images with the good (see the rejection of claim 1).
With regards to claim 8, modified McConnell discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising a step of storing the digital identity in a storage unit, comprising a computing cloud. (McConnell; [0037])
With regards to claim 9, modified McConnell discloses the method according to claim 1, a method for verifying the identity of a good, comprising the steps of:
- performing a measurement by X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy, XRF, on a plurality of adjacent areas of at least a portion of the good, thereby generating respective fluorescence spectra representative of and identifying an elemental composition of the areas (see the rejection of claim 1);
- selecting at least one chemical element (see the rejection of claim 1);
- as a function of said spectra, generating a monochromatic verification image of the portion, wherein each area has a chromatic saturation proportional to the concentration of said chemical element within said area (see the rejection of claim 1);
- querying a storage unit, thereby acquiring a stored digital identity associated with the good to be verified and generated by implementing a method according to claim 1 (McConnell; [0043][0046]).
- comparing point-by-point the verification image with the stored digital identity and in the case of identicalness between the verification image and the stored digital identity, certifying the authenticity of the good (McConnell; [0043][0046]).
With regards to claim 10, modified McConnell discloses the method according to claim 1, a device for generating a digital identity of a good (Abstract; see the rejection of claim 1), comprising:
- an X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy, XRF, machine (see the rejection of claim 1);
- a computer (McConnell; [0037])(Nelson; [0164]) configured to:
- control the activation of the XRF machine in order to perform an XRF measurement on a plurality of adjacent areas of at least one portion of the good, thereby generating respective fluorescence spectra representative of and identifying an elemental composition of the areas (see the rejection of claim 1);
- selecting at least one chemical element (see the rejection of claim 1);
- as a function of said spectra, generating a monochromatic image of the portion, wherein each area has a chromatic saturation proportional to the concentration of said chemical element within said area (see the rejection of claim 1);
- generating a digital identity by uniquely associating said at least one image with the good (see the rejection of claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 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:
With regards to claim 2, modified McConnell do not disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein each area has a surface extent delimited by a square with sides of between 0.2 and 4 millimetres.
With regards to claim 3, modified McConnell do not disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the portion of the good has a surface extent delimited by a square with sides of between 2 and 4 centimetres.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lennington et al. (US 7,756,291)
Robert et al. (US 2025/0035644)
Thomas (US 5,845,001)
Niki (US 2023/0229885)
Piorek et al. (US 2013/0202083)
Baque (US 2011/0253783)
Bersani et al. (US 2025/0156883)
Stratham (US 2014/0035943)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGH H MAUPIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00 pm.
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.
/HUGH MAUPIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights