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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8, 11-13, 15-18, 20-22, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juriasingani et al. (US 2015/0290872) in view of Walter (US 4130623). Regarding claims 1, 5, and 6, Juriasingani et al. disclose “an impresser mechanism (item 10) configured to create an impression (abstract) on a plastic card (item 100), comprising: an impresser station (Figure 1A) disposed on a card travel path along which the plastic card can travel in the impresser mechanism (paragraph 20); the impresser station includes a die (item 12), an anvil (item 34) positioned opposite the die and on which the plastic card can be positioned to support the plastic card while the impression is formed on the plastic card using the die (Figure 1A), and a ribbon that is positionable between the die and the plastic card (paragraph 52).” Juriasingani et al. fail to disclose that “the anvil includes a non-metallic resilient card support structure made of a non-metallic material that directly supports the plastic card while the impression is formed on the plastic card using the die, and a rigid base that supports the non-metallic resilient card support structure.” However, Walter teaches in a die embosser assembly, providing a resilient, elastomeric anvil (Figure 4, item 18) with a rigid base (see the support below item 18 in Figure 4, column 6, lines 7-18) to provide uniform contact with the die (column 1, lines 27-33; Figure 4). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the anvil of Juriasingani et al. with a resilient anvil supported on a rigid base in order to provide more uniform contact with the die. Juriasingani et al. also fail to disclose “wherein the non-metallic material has a hardness of between about 20 Shore D to about 50 Shore D” or “about 40 Shore D” (as in claim 5). However, it has been held that when the general conditions are known in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05. In this instance, Walter teaches that an elastomeric slab allows for displacement such that the sheet can have more uniform contact (column 1, lines 27-33). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the hardness of the elastomer would affect how much displacement occurs, and ultimately, therefore, the uniformity of the contact. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the hardness of the thermoplastic material to “about 40 Shore D” in order to determine the optimum or workable hardness for the chosen system to achieve the desired amount of displacement and/or the desired amount of uniformity in the contact. Juriasingani et al. also fail to disclose “wherein the non-metallic material has a thickness of between about 0.125 inches to about 0.145 inches,” or “about 0.135 inches,” as in claim 6. However, it has been held that when the general conditions are known in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05. In this instance, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the thickness of the slab: a) also affects how much displacement would be allowed; and/or b) affects how much pressure could be applied during the impressing step without causing the elastomer to fail or break. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the thickness of the non-metallic material to between about 0.125 inches to about 0.145 inches, or to about 0.135 inches, in order to determine the optimum or workable thickness for the chosen system which results in: an optimum or workable amount of displacement; and/or an optimum or workable thickness which prevents failure or breaking of the elastomer during impressing. Regarding claim 8, Juriasingani et al. disclose “an indent mechanism (item 10) configured to create an indentation (abstract) on a plastic card (item 100), comprising: an indent station (Figure 1A) disposed on a card travel path along which the plastic card can travel in the indent mechanism (paragraph 20); the indent station includes a die (item 12), an anvil (item 34) positioned opposite the die and on which the plastic card can be positioned to support the plastic card while the indentation is formed on the plastic card using the die (Figure 1A),” Juriasingani et al. fail to disclose that “the anvil is configured to resiliently support the plastic card while the indentation is formed on the plastic card using the die, wherein the anvil includes a non-metallic resilient card support structure made of a non-metallic material that directly supports the plastic card while the indentation is formed on the plastic card using the die, and a rigid base that supports the non-metallic resilient card support structure, and the non-metallic material includes side edges that are not laterally constrained by the rigid base; the rigid base includes an uppermost surface, and the non-metallic material is located on the uppermost surface.” However, Walter teaches providing a resilient, elastomeric anvil in a die embosser assembly which directly supports the plastic material (column 1, lines 6-8, Figure 4) to provide uniform contact with the die (column 1, lines 27-33, Figure 4). The anvil has a rigid base with an uppermost surface, with the non-metallic material located on the uppermost surface (see the material under the elastomeric material), the non-metallic material including side edges that are not laterally constrained by the rigid base (see Figure 4). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the anvil of Juriasingani et al. with a resilient anvil in order to provide more uniform contact with the die. Regarding the limitation that “wherein the indentation is formed in a first surface of the plastic card and the indentation does not project from or beyond a second surface of the plastic card opposite the first surface,” the limitation amounts to an intended use of the apparatus. It has been held that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In this instance, the plastic card is not part of the apparatus. All of the other positively recited structural limitations on the apparatus in the claim are met by the modified apparatus of Juriasingani et al. Therefore, the modified apparatus of Juriasingani et al. is deemed to meet the claim. Furthermore, since the plastic card is not part of the apparatus, whether or not an indentation does not project from or beyond a second surface of a plastic card depends, in part, on the characteristics of the plastic card. Therefore, the modified apparatus of Juriasingani et al. is deemed to be able to carry out the intended use, in the event that a plastic card is used in which the normal operation of the modified apparatus of Juriasingani et al. would not cause the indentation to project from or beyond a second surface of the plastic card. Regarding claims 11 and 12 Juriasingani et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 8 above, but fail to disclose “wherein the non-metallic material has a hardness of between about 20 Shore D to about 50 Shore D” or “about 40 Shore D” (as in claim 12). However, it has been held that when the general conditions are known in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05. In this instance, Walter teaches that an elastomeric slab allows for displacement such that the sheet can have more uniform contact (column 1, lines 27-33). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the hardness of the elastomer would affect how much displacement occurs, and ultimately, therefore, the uniformity of the contact. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the hardness of the thermoplastic material to “about 40 Shore D” in order to determine the optimum or workable hardness for the chosen system to achieve the desired amount of displacement and/or the desired amount of uniformity in the contact. Regarding claims 12 and 13, Juriasingani et al., as modified, also fail to disclose “wherein the non-metallic material has a thickness of between about 0.125 inches to about 0.145 inches,” or “about 0.135 inches,” as in claim 13. However, it has been held that when the general conditions are known in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05. In this instance, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the thickness of the slab: a) also affects how much displacement would be allowed; and/or b) affects how much pressure could be applied during the impressing step without causing the elastomer to fail or break. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the thickness of the non-metallic material to between about 0.125 inches to about 0.145 inches, or to about 0.135 inches, in order to determine the optimum or workable thickness for the chosen system which results in: an optimum or workable amount of displacement; and/or an optimum or workable thickness which prevents failure or breaking of the elastomer during impressing. Regarding claim 15, Juriasingani et al. disclose “a plastic card processing system (paragraph 58), comprising: a card input through which a plastic card is input (Figure 5: see the input side); a card output through which the plastic card is output (Figure 5: see the output side); a card transport mechanism configured to transport the plastic card from the card input to the card output (Figure 5; paragraph 58); a printing station configured to print on the plastic card (paragraph 58); and the indent mechanism of claim 8 (paragraph 58, see the rejection of claim 8 above).” Regarding claim 16, Juriasingani et al. further disclose “wherein the indent mechanism is internal to the plastic card processing system (paragraph 58).” Examiner notes that, absent any recited physical boundaries of the components or any relationships between the components, Examiner can broadly interpret the “system” such that the impresser mechanism is included within that system. Regarding claim 17, Juriasingani et al. disclose “an indent module (item 20) configured to create an indentation on a plastic card (abstract), comprising: an input through which the plastic card can be input into the indent module (see the input side in Figure 5); an output through which the plastic card can be output from the indent module (see the output side in Figure 5); a card travel path extending from the input and along which the plastic card can travel in the indent module (Figure 5: paragraph 58); an indent station (Figure 1A) disposed on the card travel path along which the plastic card can travel in the indent mechanism (paragraph 20); the indent station includes a die (item 12), an anvil (item 34) positioned opposite the die and on which the plastic card can be positioned to support the plastic card while the indentation is formed on the plastic card using the die (Figure 1A),” Juriasingani et al. fail to disclose that “the anvil is configured to resiliently support the plastic card while the indentation is formed on the plastic card using the die, wherein the anvil includes a non-metallic resilient card support structure made of a non-metallic material that directly supports the plastic card while the indentation is formed on the plastic card using the die, and a rigid base that supports the non-metallic resilient card support structure, the rigid base includes an uppermost surface, and the non-metallic material is located on the uppermost surface wherein the non-metallic material includes side edges that are not laterally constrained by the rigid base.” However, Walter teaches providing a resilient, elastomeric anvil in a die embosser assembly which directly supports the plastic material (column 1, lines 6-8, Figure 4) to provide uniform contact with the die (column 1, lines 27-33, Figure 4). The anvil has a rigid base with an uppermost surface, with the non-metallic material located on the uppermost surface (see the material under the elastomeric material), the non-metallic material including side edges that are not laterally constrained by the rigid base (see Figure 4). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the anvil of Juriasingani et al. with a resilient anvil in order to provide more uniform contact with the die. Regarding the limitation that “wherein the indentation is formed in a first surface of the plastic card and the indentation does not project from or beyond a second surface of the plastic card opposite the first surface,” the limitation amounts to an intended use of the apparatus. It has been held that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In this instance, the plastic card is not part of the apparatus. All of the other positively recited structural limitations on the apparatus in the claim are met by the modified apparatus of Juriasingani et al. Therefore, the modified apparatus of Juriasingani et al. is deemed to meet the claim. Furthermore, since the plastic card is not part of the apparatus, whether or not an indentation does not project from or beyond a second surface of a plastic card depends, in part, on the characteristics of the plastic card. Therefore, the modified apparatus of Juriasingani et al. is deemed to be able to carry out the intended use, in the event that a plastic card is used in which the normal operation of the modified apparatus of Juriasingani et al. would not cause the indentation to project from or beyond a second surface of the plastic card. Regarding claim 18, Juriasingani et al. further disclose “further comprising a ribbon that is positionable between the die and the plastic card (paragraph 52).” Regarding claims 20 and 21, Juriasingani et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 17 above, but fail to disclose “wherein the non-metallic material has a hardness of between about 20 Shore D to about 50 Shore D” or “about 40 Shore D” (as in claim 21). However, it has been held that when the general conditions are known in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05. In this instance, Walter teaches that an elastomeric slab allows for displacement such that the sheet can have more uniform contact (column 1, lines 27-33). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the hardness of the elastomer would affect how much displacement occurs, and ultimately, therefore, the uniformity of the contact. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the hardness of the thermoplastic material to “about 40 Shore D” in order to determine the optimum or workable hardness for the chosen system to achieve the desired amount of displacement and/or the desired amount of uniformity in the contact. Regarding claims 21 and 22, Juriasingani et al., as modified, also fail to disclose “wherein the non-metallic material has a thickness of between about 0.125 inches to about 0.145 inches,” or “about 0.135 inches,” as in claim 22. However, it has been held that when the general conditions are known in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05. In this instance, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the thickness of the slab: a) also affects how much displacement would be allowed; and/or b) affects how much pressure could be applied during the impressing step without causing the elastomer to fail or break. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the thickness of the non-metallic material to between about 0.125 inches to about 0.145 inches, or to about 0.135 inches, in order to determine the optimum or workable thickness for the chosen system which results in: an optimum or workable amount of displacement; and/or an optimum or workable thickness which prevents failure or breaking of the elastomer during impressing. Regarding claim 27, the claim amounts to an intended use of the apparatus. It has been held that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In this instance, the plastic card is not part of the apparatus. All of the other positively recited structural limitations on the apparatus in the claim are met by the modified apparatus of Juriasingani et al. Therefore, the modified apparatus of Juriasingani et al. is deemed to meet the claim. Furthermore, since the plastic card is not part of the apparatus, and whether or not an indentation does not project from or beyond a second surface of a plastic card depends, in part, on the characteristics of the plastic card. Therefore, the modified apparatus of Juriasingani et al. is deemed to be able to carry out the intended use, in the event that a plastic card is used in which the normal operation of the modified apparatus of Juriasingani et al. would not cause the indentation to project from or beyond a second surface of the plastic card. Regarding claim 28, Walter further discloses “the non-metallic material includes side edges that are not laterally constrained (see Figure 4).”
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juriasingani et al. and Walter, further in view of Stender et al. (US 2005/0104281). Regarding claim 24, Juriasingani et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 17 above, but fail to disclose “wherein the input and the output are the same.” Regarding claim 25, Juriasingani et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 17 above, including a print engine (paragraph 58), but fail to disclose “a plastic card processing system, comprising: a housing having a front side, a rear side, a top and a bottom; a card input at the front side, the rear side or the top of the housing; a card input hopper that is in communication with the card input, the card input hopper is configured to hold a plurality of plastic cards to be processed; a card travel path extending from the card input and along which a plastic card input from the card input hopper can travel; a print engine within the housing, the print engine is configured to print on a plastic card input from the card input hopper; the impresser module of claim 17 mounted at the front side, the rear side, or the top of the housing.” Stender et al. disclose a system with a housing with a front side, a rear side, a top and a bottom (see Figure 1), a card input at the front side of the housing (Figure 1), a card input hopper (item 16) that is in communication with the card input (paragraph 41), the card input hopper is configured to hold a plurality of plastic cards to be processed (paragraph 17), a card travel path extending from the card input and along which a plastic card input from the card input hopper can travel (paragraph 45; see Figure 1); a print engine within the housing, the print engine is configured to print on a plastic card input from the card input hopper (paragraphs 1 and 39).” Stender et al. further disclose that the hopper system can be used for systems which do more than just print on cards (paragraph 39) and allows for processing of more than just one card (paragraph 5). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the printing and impressing system of Juriasingani et al. with the system of Stender et al. which combines a card printing and processing device with a hopper in order to allow for, inter alia, processing of more than just one card. Further regarding claim 24, upon combination with Stender et al., the input and output as defined in claim 17 would now be the input and output of the housing as shown in Stender et al., and therefore they would be the same (see the hopper assembly 16, paragraph 74).” Regarding claim 26, Stender et al. further disclose “wherein the card input is at the front side of the housing and the card input hopper is mounted at the front side of the housing (figure 1),” but fail to specifically disclose “the indent module is mounted at the rear side of the housing.” However, the ‘printer section’ of Stender et al. is located at the rear side of the housing. Thus, upon combination with Stender et al., one having ordinary skill in the art would naturally place the impresser module at the rear side of the housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
To the extent that the arguments are relevant to the instant rejections, they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's arguments that Walter teaches away, Applicant is referred to the decision of the Board, which found that the teachings of Walter “do not rise to the level of teaching away from the Examiner’s combination.” Board’s decision at page 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853