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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the third to last line, "received" should be "receive" and in the last line, “belt” should be “belts.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka et al. (US 6796647) in view of Wotton et al. (US 6336722), further in view of Segall et al. (US 2006/0278332). Regarding claim 1, Kosaka et al. disclose “a continuous feed dye sublimation machine for infusing an image from a printed sheet to a substrate (Figure 1), the dye sublimation machine comprising: one or more conveyor belts (item 201), the one or more conveyor belts structured to receive the printed sheet and the substrate and apply pressure to the printed sheet and the substrate (column 9, lines 1-4); and a heating element (column 9, lines 1-7), structured to heat the printed sheet to sublimate one or more dyes forming the image (column 9, lines 7-10), such that the one or more dyes travel to the substrate in a gaseous state and deposit into the substrate in a solid state thereby infusing the image into the substrate (column 9, lines 7-10), wherein at least one of the printed sheet or the substrate are received in a substantially continuous feed (column 10, lines 11-13).” Kosaka et al. fail to disclose “a plurality of heating elements,” “the plurality of heating elements contained within the one or more conveyor belts.” Wotton et al. disclose having a plurality of heating elements (items 72) contained within one or more conveyor belts (column 6, lines 18-26) in order to efficiently apply heat to the media and to reduce the likelihood of overheating printer components (column 3, lines 5-13). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the heating mechanism of Wotton et al. in the apparatus of Kosaka et al. in order to efficiently apply heat to the media and to reduce the likelihood of overheating the printer components. Kosaka et al. also fail to disclose that the printed sheet and the substrate have pressure applied while they are advancing, or “wherein the one or more conveyor belts comprises a first conveyor belt below the printed sheet and the substrate and a second conveyor belt above the printed sheet and the substrate, and wherein the one or more conveyor belts simultaneously apply pressure to the printed sheet and the substrate by squeezing the printed sheet and the substrate between the first conveyor belt and the second conveyor.” Segall et al. disclose using a double belt or double band press to make a dye sublimation process continuous (paragraphs 4, 38, and Figure 1 vs. Figure 3). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the double belt press configuration in order to make the process continuous. Regarding claim 4, Wotton et al. further disclose “further comprising a processor configured to individually control each of the plurality of heating elements (column 6, lines 45-49).” Regarding claim 5, Kosaka et al. further disclose “wherein the processor maintains a substantially constant temperature across the one or more conveyor belts (column 7, lines 49-50).” Regarding claim 6, Wotton et al. further disclose “wherein the processor maintains a temperature gradient across the one or more conveyor belts, the temperature gradient increasing in a direction of movement of the printed sheet and the substrate (column 7, lines 31-40).” Regarding claim 7, Wotton et al. further disclose “wherein the processor maintains a pre- heating temperature for a first subset of the plurality of heater elements and a dye sublimation temperature for a second subset of the plurality of heater elements (column 7, lines 27-31).” Regarding claim 8, Kosaka et al. further disclose “further comprising a processor configured to individually control a rotation of the one or more conveyor belts to control a speed at which the printed sheet and substrate move (column 20, lines 41-43).” Regarding claim 9, Kosaka et al. further disclose “further comprising one or more unheated conveyor belts structured to receive the printed sheet and substrate prior to the one or more conveyor belts (item 13).” Regarding claim 10, Wotton et al. further disclose “wherein the plurality of heating elements comprises a first heating element at a pre-heating temperature and a second heating element at a dye sublimation temperature (column 7, lines 17-31).” Regarding claim 11, Kosaka et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “wherein the substrate is less than 0.028 inches thick.” It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05. In this instance, the thickness of cards in general are known, and the thickness of the substrate clearly affects the thickness of the card. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to set the thickness of the substrate to less than 0.028 inches thick in order to determine the optimum or workable thickness of the substrate that results in a desired thickness of the card.
Claim(s) 12, 13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka et al. (US 6796647) in view of Wotton et al. (US 6336722), Schulzen (US 4681034) and Segall et al., further in view of Wilen (US 2013/0269550)
Regarding claim 12, Kosaka et al. teach “a dye sublimation method for infusing an image formed by one or more dyes on a printed sheet to a substrate (abstract), the method comprising: receiving a feed of a printed sheet and a feed of a substrate (column 21, lines 55-60); heating the printed sheet and the substrate to at or above a dye sublimation temperature to sublimate one or more dyes forming the image (column 22, lines 3-7), such that the one or more dyes travel to the substrate in a gaseous state and deposit into the substrate in a solid state thereby infusing the image into the substrate (column 22, lines 1-10).” Kosaka et al. fail to teach “pre-heating, via a first heating element, the printed sheet and the substrate to a first temperature below a dye sublimation temperature,” or “heating, via a second heating element” to a temperature at or above the dye sublimation temperature. Schulzen et al. teach preheating the substrate and the transfer medium to a temperature below the sublimation temperature in order to facilitate the penetration of the subliming dye into the surface layer of the substrate (column 2, lines 3-38). 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 a first heating element to preheat the substrate and the printed sheet to a first temperature below the dye sublimation temperature in order to facilitate the penetration of the sublimating dye into the surface layer of the substrate. In so doing the heating element used to heat the printed sheet and the substrate above the sublimation temperature would be the second heating element. Kosaka et al. also fail to teach that that the conveyor belts have the heating elements. Wotton et al. disclose having a plurality of heating elements (items 72) contained within one or more conveyor belts (column 6, lines 18-26) in order to efficiently apply heat to the media and to reduce the likelihood of overheating printer components (column 3, lines 5-13). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the heating mechanism of Wotton et al. in the apparatus of Kosaka et al. in order to efficiently apply heat to the media and to reduce the likelihood of overheating the printer components. Kosaka et al. also fail to disclose that the feed of a printed sheet and the feed of the substrate are both fed continuously or that at least one of them is continuously moving, that the printed sheet and the substrate have pressure applied simultaneously “while receiving and advancing the printed sheet and the substrate,” or that the receiving and advancing is achieved via a plurality of conveyor belts. Segall et al. disclose using a double belt or double band press to make a dye sublimation process continuous (paragraphs 4, 38, and Figure 1 vs. Figure 3). In the double belt configuration, the printed layer and the substrate are fed continuously and they have pressure applied simultaneously (paragraph 4, Figure 1). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the double belt press configuration in order to make the process continuous. Kosaka et al. also fail to disclose “receiving, via a first pair of embossing rollers, the printed sheet and the substrate from the plurality of conveyor belts, and embossing, via the first pair of embossing rollers, a texture on the substrate by passing the substrate and the printed sheet through the embossing rollers.” Wilen teaches providing a card (title) printed by, for example, dye sublimation (paragraph 45) with an inline embossing station comprising one or more embossing rollers (paragraph 43) in order to provide an embossed security component (paragraphs 6-8). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Kosaka et al. by adding an inline embossing station in order to provide an embossed security component. Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of the invention, a known method of embossing included passing the substrate through two embossing rollers. 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 two embossing rollers through which the substrate passes as the inline embossing station because it was known in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose. See MPEP §2144.07. Since the process is inline, the embossing rollers would receive the printed sheet and the substrate from the plurality of conveyor belts.
Regarding claim 13, since it is the temperature of the sublimation dye that needs to be heated above the sublimation temperature, common sense would dictate that putting the second heater in the conveyor belt which more directly affects the sublimation dye would be more efficient at heating the sublimation dye above the sublimation temperature. Therefore, the conveyor belt which is used in the preheating is interpreted to be a first conveyor belt of the plurality of conveyor belts and the conveyor belt which is used in the heating step is interpreted to be a second conveyor belt of the plurality of conveyor belts.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Kosaka et al., as modified, teach all that is claimed, as in claim 12 above, except “wherein the first heating element is included in a front zone of the plurality conveyor belts, and wherein the second heating element is included within at least one of a middle or end zone of the plurality conveyor belts.” Wotton et al. disclose having a plurality of individually controllable heating elements (items 72) contained within one or more conveyor belts (column 6, lines 18-26) in more than one zone (Figure 4) in order to efficiently apply heat to the media and to reduce the likelihood of overheating printer components (column 3, lines 5-13). Furthermore, since it is the temperature of the sublimation dye that needs to be heated above the sublimation temperature, common sense would dictate that putting the second heater in the conveyor belt which more directly affects the sublimation dye would be more efficient at heating the sublimation dye above the sublimation temperature. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to put the first heating element in a front zone, and to put the second heating element afterwards, at a middle or ends zone. Regarding claim 18, Kosaka et al. further teach “further comprising controlling, via a controller, a speed at which the continuous feed of the printed sheet and the continuous feed of the substrate are received (column 19, lines 52-54 and column 20, lines 40-43).”
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka et al., Wotton et al., and Segall et al., further in view of Parker et al. (US2004/0217508). Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kosaka et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “wherein the dye sublimation machine is directly coupled to an extrusion machine that produces the substrate.” Parker et al. teach that direct roll feed of a substrate is much faster (paragraph 24), and further teaches that extruding in-line is beneficial for large volumes (paragraphs 27 and 36). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the invention of Kosaka et al. by directly extruding the substrate in-line in order to facilitate large volume of output at a higher speed. Regarding claim 3, upon modification in accordance with Parker et al., one having ordinary skill in the art would configure the apparatus such that “the one or more conveyor belts are structured to receive the substrate directly from an extrusion machine” in order to make the system “in-line.”
Claim(s) 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka et al., Schulzen, Segall et al., Wotton et al., and Wilen, further in view of Parker et al. (US2004/0217508). Regarding claims 14 and 19, Kosaka et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 12 above, except “further comprising receiving the continuous feed of the substrate directly from an extrusion machine that produces the substrate,” or “further comprising providing the substrate infused with the image directly to a cutting machine.” Parker et al. teach that direct roll feed of a substrate is much faster (paragraph 24), and further teach that extruding in-line is beneficial for large volumes (paragraphs 27 and 36). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the invention of Kosaka et al. by directly extruding the substrate in-line in order to facilitate large volume of output at a higher speed. Further regarding claim 19, since the system of Kosaka et al. has been modified to be in a continuous roll, the roll needs to be cut into sheets. 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 substrate infused with the image directly to a cutting machine in order to keep the entire process “in-line.”
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka et al. in view of Schulzen and Segall et al., further in view of Ushigome (US 2021/0299939).
Regarding claim 20, Kosaka et al. disclose “a continuous feed dye sublimation machine for infusing an image from a printed sheet to a substrate (Figure 10), the dye sublimation machine comprising: a conveyor belt (item 201), the conveyor belt structured to receive the printed sheet and the substrate and apply pressure to the printed sheet and the substrate (column 9, lines 1-9); and a heating element (column 9, line 1) structured to heat the printed sheet and substrate (column 9, lines 1-9), the heating element structured to heat the printed sheet and substrate to sublimate one or more dyes forming the image, such that the one or more dyes travel to the substrate in a gaseous state and deposit into the substrate in a solid state thereby infusing the image into the substrate (column 9, lines 1-9), wherein at least one of the printed sheet or the substrate are received in a substantially continuous feed (column 4, lines 60-63).” Kosaka et al. fails to disclose “a plurality of conveyor belts,” “a plurality of heating elements, wherein at least one of the plurality of heating elements is contained within each of the plurality of conveyor belts, the plurality of heating elements structured to heat the printed sheet and substrate via the plurality of conveyor belts, wherein at least one of the plurality of conveyor belts includes a first heating element of the plurality of heating elements structured to heat the printed sheet and substrate to a first temperature below a dye sublimation temperature, wherein at least one of the plurality of conveyor belts includes a second heating element of the plurality of heating elements structured to heat the printed sheet and substrate to sublimate one or more dyes forming the image, such that the one or more dyes travel to the substrate in a gaseous state and deposit into the substrate in a solid state thereby infusing the image into the substrate,” or “wherein the plurality of conveyor belts comprise tubing extending along each of the plurality of conveyor belts configured to receive a heated fluid, and wherein the plurality of heating elements comprise fluid heating elements configured to heat the heated flow and provide the heated fluid to the tubing of the plurality of conveyor belts.” Schulzen et al. teach preheating the substrate and the transfer medium to a temperature below the sublimation temperature in order to facilitate the penetration of the subliming dye into the surface layer of the substrate (column 2, lines 3-38). 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 a first heating element to preheat the substrate and the printed sheet to a first temperature below the dye sublimation temperature in order to facilitate the penetration of the subliming dye into the surface layer of the substrate. In so doing the heating element used to heat the printed sheet and the substrate above the sublimation temperature would be the second heating element.
Kosaka et al. also fail to disclose that the feed of a printed sheet and the feed of the substrate are both fed continuously or that at least one of them is continuously moving, that the printed sheet and the substrate have pressure applied simultaneously while receiving and advancing the printed sheet and the substrate, or that the receiving and advancing is achieved via a plurality of conveyor belts. Segall et al. disclose using a double belt or double band press to make a dye sublimation process continuous (paragraphs 4, 38, and Figure 1 vs. Figure 3). In the double belt configuration, the printed layer and the substrate are fed continuously and they have pressure applied simultaneously (paragraph 4, Figure 1). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the double belt press configuration in order to make the process continuous. Ushigome discloses a heated conveyor belt (item 126, Figure 10) that has a heating element (item 212, paragraph 117) which heats the conveyor belt via hot water which is delivered via tubes (items 211) which extend along the conveyor belt (Figure 11). The heating system of Ushigome allows for the temperature of the conveyor belt to be maintained at the desired temperature (paragraph 128). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the heating system of Ushigome in each conveyor belt in order to maintain the temperature of each conveyor belt at the desired temperature.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka et al. (US 6796647) in view of Segall et al., further in view of Ushigome. Regarding claim 22, Kosaka et al. disclose “a continuous feed dye sublimation machine for infusing an image from a printed sheet to a substrate (Figure 1), the dye sublimation machine comprising: one or more conveyor belts (item 201), the one or more conveyor belts structured to receive the printed sheet and the substrate and apply pressure to the printed sheet and the substrate (column 9, lines 1-4); and a heating element (column 9, lines 1-7), structured to heat the printed sheet to sublimate one or more dyes forming the image (column 9, lines 7-10), such that the one or more dyes travel to the substrate in a gaseous state and deposit into the substrate in a solid state thereby infusing the image into the substrate (column 9, lines 7-10), wherein at least one of the printed sheet or the substrate are received in a substantially continuous feed (column 10, lines 11-13).” Kosaka et al. fail to disclose “a plurality of heating elements,” “the plurality of heating elements contained within the one or more conveyor belts” or “wherein the plurality of heating elements comprise fluid heating elements, and wherein the one or more conveyor belts comprise tubing configured to receive a heated fluid from the fluid heating elements.” Ushigome discloses a heated conveyor belt (item 126, Figure 10) that has a heating element (item 212, paragraph 117) which heats the conveyor belt via hot water which is delivered via tubes (items 211) which extend along the conveyor belt (Figure 11). The heating system of Ushigome allows for the temperature of the conveyor belt to be maintained at the desired temperature (paragraph 128). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the heating system of Ushigome in each conveyor belt in order to maintain the temperature of each conveyor belt at the desired temperature. Kosaka et al. also fail to disclose that the printed sheet and the substrate have pressure applied while they are advancing, or “wherein the one or more conveyor belts comprises a first conveyor belt below the printed sheet and the substrate and a second conveyor belt above the printed sheet and the substrate, and wherein the one or more conveyor belts simultaneously apply pressure to the printed sheet and the substrate by squeezing the printed sheet and the substrate between the first conveyor belt and the second conveyor.” Segall et al. disclose using a double belt or double band press to make a dye sublimation process continuous (paragraphs 4, 38, and Figure 1 vs. Figure 3). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the double belt press configuration in order to make the process continuous.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka et al., Wotton et al., and Segall et al., further in view of Wilen.
Kosaka et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “further comprising a plurality of texture rolls structured to receive the printed sheet and the substrate from the one or more conveyor belts after the image has been infused into the substrate and to apply a surface texture to the substrate.” Wilen teaches providing a card (title) printed by, for example, dye sublimation (paragraph 45) with an inline embossing station comprising one or more embossing rollers (paragraph 43) in order to provide an embossed security component (paragraphs 6-8). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Kosaka et al. by adding an inline embossing station in order to provide an embossed security component. Since the process is inline, the embossing rollers would receive the printed sheet and the substrate from the plurality of conveyor belts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. To the extent that they are applicable to the instant rejection, they are not persuasive.
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 at (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