DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 11, 17-19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morgavi (2014/0063086) in view of Woolridge et al. (2018/0257416).
Regarding claims 1,11 and 21, Morgavi teaches a method of processing a card and a card processing system that implements the method having a first surface and a second surface in a card processing system that includes a drop-on-demand card printing mechanism that is configured to perform drop-on-demand printing in a print station having a plurality of drop-on-demand print head, the method comprising:
in a first printing pass of the card through the print station and past all of the drop-on-demand print heads (see fig. 1, items T), applying at least one material (color ink) to the first surface of the card ([0062]) in the card processing system using at least one of the drop-on-demand print heads (fig. 1, item T1) of the print station ([0077]);
in a second printing pass of the card through the print station and past all of the drop-on-demand print heads that occurs after the first printing pass, applying at least one additional material ([0070]-[0071], [0077], varnish or any other type of liquid applied to the card in a second pass) to the first surface of the card in the card processing system using at least one of the drop-on-demand print heads (fig. 1, item Tq) of the print station, the at least one additional material being applied at least partially over the at least one material ([0070]-[0071], [0077]).
Morgavi does not teach inputting the card from a card feed mechanism, transporting the card into a smart card programming mechanism and programming a chip on the card while simultaneously programming chips on other cards and transporting the card to the drop-on-demand printing mechanism, and after printing on the card, outputting the card into a card output. Woolridge teaches this (Woolridge, [0054], see fig. 1, Note that the card is fed into document input 14, a chip on the card is programmed at 28 simultaneous to programming other cards, the card is fed to the printing station 18, and finally the card us output to the document output 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply specifics of the card printing system disclosed by Morgavi to the general card processing device disclosed by Woolridge because doing so would amount to combining a known printing device arrangement with a known processing system to obtain predictable results. In other words, while Morgavi goes into detail about the arrangement of the its printing device, it does not provide much detail about any other portions of a card processing system, and while Woolridge gives a general outline of a card processing system, it does not go into detail about the printing device itself. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Morgavi for details about how to arrange a printing device and apply that arrangement to the general processing system disclosure by Woolridge to arrive at a more thorough detail of such a system.
Upon combination of Woolridge with Morgavi, the resultant device would meet the limitation: between the first printing pass and the second printing pass, the card is not transported into the smart card programming mechanism. That is, the entire print station shown in Morgavi’s Figure 1 is being likened to print station 24 shown in Woolridge’s Figure 1. As such, the card is initially transported into the programming mechanism 28 of Woolridge, and then, the card is feed to the print station, where the first pass and the second pass are completed without any programming in between.
Upon combination of Woolridge with Morgavi, the resultant device operates in a manner so as to: after the first printing pass, mechanically transport the card at least partially upstream of the print station without the card passing the card feed mechanism, and thereafter performing the second printing pass. That is, as detailed above, the prior art combination has everything shown in Morgavi’s Figure 1 contained within the printing station 18 shown in Woolridge’s Figure 1. As such, after the first printing pass, the card is transported under the conveyor to the upstream side of the print station without passing the card feed mechanism, Wooldridge, item 14, and loaded back onto the conveyor, Morgavi, item 16, for the second printing pass.
Further, according to the above interpretation, the card is not transported into the smart card programming mechanism between the first printing pass and the second printing pass.
Regarding claim 2, Morgavi in view of Woolridge teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one material is radiation curable (Morgavi, [0062]); and after the first printing pass, discharging electromagnetic radiation from an electromagnetic radiation source (Morgavi, fig. 1, item 70) and directing at least a portion of the discharged electromagnetic radiation onto the at least one material applied to the first surface to at least partially cure the at least one material (Morgavi, [0065]). Regarding claim 3, Morgavi in view of Woolridge teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one additional material is radiation curable (Morgavi, [0071]); and after the second printing pass, discharging electromagnetic radiation from an electromagnetic radiation source and directing at least a portion of the discharged electromagnetic radiation onto the at least one additional material applied to the first surface to at least partially cure the at least one additional material (Morgavi, [0065]). Regarding claim 4, Morgavi in view of Woolridge teaches the method of claim 1, after the first printing pass, mechanically transporting the card at least partially upstream of print station without the card passing the card feed mechanism, and thereafter performing the second printing pass (Morgavi, see fig. 1, note that cards are transported from bin 10B to bin 10A for refeeding for a subsequent pass). Regarding claim 5, Morgavi in view of Woolridge teaches the method of claim 2, in the first printing pass, applying two or more radiation curable materials to the first surface of the card using two or more drop-on-demand print heads of print station (Morgavi, [0074], Note that two or more different colored inks can be printed in the same area of the card by different printheads T). Regarding claim 6, Morgavi in view of Woolridge teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the two or more radiation curable materials comprise two differently colored inks (Morgavi, [0074], Note that two or more different colored inks can be printed in the same area of the card by different printheads T). Regarding claim 7, Morgavi in view of Woolridge teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the two or more radiation curable materials comprise a colored ink and a non-ink material (Morgavi, [0074], Note that two or more different colored inks can be printed in the same area of the card by different printheads T. Note that if, in claim 1, both of the at least one material and the at least one additional material are defined as color inks deposited in different passes, in this claim the two or more radiation curable materials can be defined as any given color ink and varnish). Regarding claim 8, Morgavi in view of Woolridge teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the at least one additional material comprises a colored ink or a non-ink material (Morgavi, [0074], Note that two or more different colored inks can be printed in the same area of the card by different printheads T. Note that if, in claim 1, both of the at least one material and the at least one additional material are defined as color inks deposited in different passes, in this claim the two or more radiation curable materials can be defined as any given color ink and varnish). Regarding claim 10, Morgavi in view of Woolridge teaches the method of claim 1, between the first printing pass and the second printing pass, applying at least one material to a first surface or a second surface of at least one additional card using at least one drop-on-demand print head of print station (Morgavi, see fig. 1, Note that upper surfaces of several cards Cp-Cn are printed simultaneously).
Regarding claim 17, Morgavi in view of Woolridge teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the card includes a magnetic stripe, and further comprising storing data on the magnetic stripe in the card processing system (Woolridge, [0054]).
Regarding claim 18, Morgavi in view of Woolridge teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the card includes two or more of the following: a printed portrait image of the intended card holder; and account number; and a name of the intended card holder (Woolridge, [0009]).
Regarding claim 19, Morgavi in view of Woolridge teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the card is a financial card (Woolridge, [0009]).
Regarding claim 20, Morgavi in view of Woolridge teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the drop-on-demand card printing mechanism has a card processing rate of up to 6000 cards per hour (Note that this language technically means the printing mechanism can print anywhere between zero and 6000 cards in an hour. Morgavi and Woolridge teach this. Further, it should be noted that, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, claiming a rate of “up to” 6000 cards per hour is such a routine optimization).
Regarding claim 22, Morgavi in view of Woolridge teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the card is a plastic card (Morgavi, [0002]).
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgavi in view of Woolridge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hill (6,210,776).
Regarding claim 26, Morgavi in view of Woolridge teaches the method of claim 1. Morgavi in view of Woolridge does not teach wherein, in the first printing pass, printing a layer of white ink on the card; and in the second printing pass, printing colored ink on top of the white ink layer. Hill teaches this (Hill, col. 12, lines 24-36, fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to print a layer of white ink and a layer of colored ink on top of the white layer because doing so would promote better brightness of the color layer. Applying this technique to the two passes disclosed by Morgavi in view of Woolridge, the white layer would be printed in the first pass, and the color layer would be printed in the second pass.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the operation of the process, but the amendment fails to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
