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
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(s) 1, 3, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al. (WO2018033512A1) in view of Loginov et al. (WO2015086257A1).
Loginov et al. ‘512 teaches: a process for producing an optical effect layer (OEL) on a substrate said optical effect layer (OEL) exhibiting a dynamic movement upon tilting the substrate and one or more indicia, said process comprising the steps of.
a) applying onto a substrate surface a coating composition comprising i) platelet- shaped magnetic or magnetizable pigment particles and ii) a binder material so as to form a coating layer on said substrate, said coating composition being in a first state (paragraph [012] a)),
b) forming an assembly (500) comprising the substrate (510) carrying the coating layer (520) and an apparatus (560) for producing an optical effect layer (OEL) comprising magnetically oriented platelet-shaped magnetic or magnetizable pigment particles on a substrate,
said optical effect layer (OEL) comprising at least a first area exhibiting a 3D effect (paragraph [0032]+) in the form of one or more indicia,
said apparatus being configured for receiving the substrate in an orientation substantially parallel to a first plane (FIG. 5B) and above the first plane (FIG. 5B) and being suitable to be used in combination with a second magnetic-field-generating device allowing at least a part of the particles to be to bi-axially oriented and comprising:
aa) a soft magnetic plate (550) carrying one or more indicia in the form of one or more indentations and/or one or more voids and/or one or more protrusions (paragraph [0134]),said soft magnetic plate having a top plate surface (implicit),
ab) a magnetic-field-generating device comprising at least one dipole magnet (560 has 2 permanent magnets) and having a top device surface (implicit), wherein the soft magnetic plate is placed on top of the magnetic-field-generating device, and wherein the top plate surface is smaller than the top device surface (paragraph [0137] as A4xA5 is smaller than the top surface of the device L7xL10),
d) hardening the coating composition to a second state so as to fix the platelet-shaped magnetic or magnetizable pigment particles in their adopted positions and orientations (paragraph [012] d)),
wherein the optical effect layer (OEL) comprises at least a first area exhibiting a 3D effect in the form of one or more indicia and at least a second area exhibiting a dynamic movement upon tilting, wherein at least one of said first area and at least one of said second area are adjacent.
Loginov et al. ‘513 is silent to c) moving the assembly comprising the substrate carrying the coating layer and the apparatus through an inhomogeneous magnetic field of a static second magnetic-field-generating device so as to bi-axially orient at least a part of the platelet-shaped magnetic or magnetizable pigment particles (paragraph [012] c)) and that the adjacent second area exhibits a dynamic movement upon tilting. However, from the orientation of the north and south pole to the dipoles it is implicit that a dynamic optical effect (movement) is also created when tilted laterally, especially as movement is not further clarified, and tilting can be interpreted to cause dynamic movement, especially given that tilting can be an adjacent part of the 3d effect area.
Loginov et al. ‘257 teaches such limitations (paragraph [042] c)+ of a second magnetic field overlapping.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to reorient/ smooth the lines. Paragraph [06] and [083]+ teaches tilting/ kinematic, 3d according to end use applications. It would have been obvious to be an adjacent area since there is overlapping and even that part of the 3d effect can be interpreted as part of both areas.
Re claim 3, a tilted rolling bar has been discussed above (paragraph [06]+ of Loginov et al. ‘257, which is an obvious expedient for a desired optical effect.
Re claim 14, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. have been taught above including the teaching of the plate relative to the substrate (see FIG. 5A+).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Mueller et al. (WO2020025218A1).
Re claim 2, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to magnets in the indentation or voids of the plate.
Mueller et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 8-11).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for the desired optical effect.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Loginov et al. (WO2021083808).
Re claim 4, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to the OEL limitations.
Loginov et al. ‘808 teaches such limitations (see figures and paragraph [08]).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for a desired optical effect.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Loginov et al. (WO2014108404).
Re claim 5, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to the device limitations.
Loginov et al. ‘404 teaches such limitations (abstract+ and figures).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to have a desired optical effect.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Loginov et al. (WO2014108303).
Re claim 6, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent at least one of the 3 recited options.
Loginov et al. ‘303 teaches such limitations (FIG. 6).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to have a particular magnetic field pattern generated.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Schmid et al. (WO2019215148).
Re claim 7, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to the crescent moon.
Schmid et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 11). Though silent to the dimension (as L11>L5) a reduction of the size of the plate is within the ordinary skill in the art as the general conditions are taught and it would not provide unexpected results but would reduce size.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to have a particular magnetic field generating device for system constraints.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Loginov et al. (WO2017064052).
Re claim 8, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to one of the 3 recited options.
Loginov et al. ‘052 teaches such options (see Figures).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for a specific layout device for system constraints for a controlled magnetic output.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Loginov et al. (WO2020193009).
Re claim 9, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to one of the three options.
Loginov et al. ‘009 teaches such limtaitons (paragraph [07]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for a desired magnetic output with high speed and reliability and security.
Re claim 12, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to the engraved magnetic plate limitations.
Loginov et al. ‘009 teaches such limitations (paragraph [097] and [0093]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings by using known techniques and materials for expected results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Loginov et al. (WO2020160993).
Re claim 10, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to the specific magnetic field device structure as recited.
Loginov et al. ‘993 teaches such limitations (paragraph [08]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to create a reliable, high production and secure magnetic field generating device yielding expected results of magnetic output.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Loginov et al. (WO2018019594).
Re claim 11, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to the soft magnetic plate limitations.
Loginov et al. ‘594 teaches such limitations (paragraph [086]).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for a specific magnetic output while optimizing parameters when the general conditions are taught involve sonly routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al. (WO2018033512A1) in view of Loginov et al. (WO2015086257A1), as discussed above, in view of Loginov et al. (WO2021239607).
The teachings of Loginov et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the cylinder and rotating.
Loginov et al. ‘607 teaches such limitations (FIG> 5D).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to extend to rotary/ rolling printing.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to extend to rotary printing for expected results.
Re claim 17, a tilted rolling bar has been discussed above (paragraph [06]+ of Loginov et al. ‘257, which is an obvious expedient for a desired optical effect.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al./ Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Mueller et al. , as discussed above.
Re claim 16, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. have been taught above but are
Mueller et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 8-11).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for the desired optical effect.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al./ Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Loginov et al. (WO2021083808).
Re claim 18, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to the OEL limitations.
Loginov et al. ‘808 teaches such limitations (see figures and paragraph [08]).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for a desired optical effect.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al./ Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Loginov et al. (WO2014108404).
Re claim 5, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to the device limitations.
Loginov et al. ‘404 teaches such limitations (abstract+ and figures).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to have a desired optical effect.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. / Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Loginov et al. (WO2014108303).
Re claim 20, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. / Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent at least one of the 3 recited options.
Loginov et al. ‘303 teaches such limitations (FIG. 6).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to have a particular magnetic field pattern generated.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al./ Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Schmid et al. (WO2019215148).
Re claim 21, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. / Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to the crescent moon.
Schmid et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 11). Though silent to the dimension (as L11>L5) a reduction of the size of the plate is within the ordinary skill in the art as the general conditions are taught and it would not provide unexpected results but would reduce size.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to have a particular magnetic field generating device for system constraints.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. / Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Loginov et al. (WO2017064052).
Re claim 22, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. / Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to one of the 3 recited options.
Loginov et al. ‘052 teaches such options (see Figures).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for a specific layout device for system constraints for a controlled magnetic output.
Claim(s) 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. / Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Loginov et al. (WO2020193009).
Re claim 23, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. / Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to one of the three options.
Loginov et al. ‘009 teaches such limtaitons (paragraph [07]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for a desired magnetic output with high speed and reliability and security.
Re claim 26, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to the engraved magnetic plate limitations.
Loginov et al. ‘009 teaches such limitations (paragraph [097] and [0093]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings by using known techniques and materials for expected results.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. / Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Loginov et al. (WO2020160993).
Re claim 24, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. / Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to the specific magnetic field device structure as recited.
Loginov et al. ‘993 teaches such limitations (paragraph [08]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to create a reliable, high production and secure magnetic field generating device yielding expected results of magnetic output.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. / Loginov et al., as discussed above, in view of Loginov et al. (WO2018019594).
Re claim 25, the teachings of Loginov et al./ Loginov et al. / Loginov et al. have been taught above but are silent to the soft magnetic plate limitations.
Loginov et al. ‘594 teaches such limitations (paragraph [086]).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for a specific magnetic output while optimizing parameters when the general conditions are taught involve sonly routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I. WALSH/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights