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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-12, 15-18, 21, 22, and 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardwick (US 2021/0253879, of record) and further in view of Ueno (US 2021/0053326, of record) and Godey (WO 2008/125750, newly cited).
Hardwick is directed to a resin composition (opacification layer) comprising two or more polymeric materials and titanium dioxide (opacifier), wherein said titanium dioxide can be coated or surface modified with alumina, silica, and siloxanes to improve dispersion (Paragraphs 91, 99, 102, and 130). More particularly, said polymeric materials include polycarbonate and polyethylene (e.g. PET). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found such a combination of materials (at the claimed loadings) obvious given the disclosure of only 6 materials and the inclusion of two or more materials.
Hardwick further states that said titanium dioxide has a preferred particle diameter between 200 nm and 300 nm (0.2 microns to 0.3 microns). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use particle sizes between 0.22 microns and 0.26 microns since such a range of particle sizes is fully encompassed by the disclosed range and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed invention. This is particularly evident from Tables 1 and 2 in which the comparative examples have particle sizes of 0.20 microns and 0.21 microns (lack of comparative examples with particle sizes greater than 0.26 microns- would be required to establish a criticality for the claimed particle size range).
Additionally, with respect to the contents of Si and Al in the coating, Ueno has been cited to evidence the common contents associated with titanium dioxide particles (Paragraph 20). It is further noted that Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed contents (a multitude of parameters, including the particle size, contends, and materials, have been varied such that is unclear if any realized benefits are a function of the contents).
With further respect to claim 1 (and claim 8), given that titanium dioxide is included as an “opacifier”, it reasons that such a material is included at a minor amount with respect to the polymeric matrix (polycarbonate). This is consistent with the broad range of the claimed invention. It is emphasized that the claimed loadings are consistent with those commonly associated with minor additives and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed loadings.
Lastly, regarding claim 1 (and claim 29), it is generally well known to include a mixture of opacifiers, for example, to achieve a desired color. Godey is directed to a similar card application and teaches the inclusion of opacified polymeric materials. More particularly, an opacifying filler can be a mixture of carbon black (claimed colorant) and titanium dioxide to achieve a desired color and promote opacity. It is emphasized that a fair reading of Hardwick does not limit the type or types of opacifying materials (Paragraph 12). Additionally, the exact amounts of respective opacifying materials is simply a function of the desired color. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of well-known and conventional opacifying materials and any number of loadings, including the claimed features.
Regarding claim 2, as noted above, Hardwick refers to a siloxane (corresponds with claimed organic substance layer).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, given the contents identified above and a ratio Si/Al between 0.01 (0.2%/20%) and 3.5 (7%/2%), it reasons that the titanium dioxide of Hardwick would demonstrate a difference in silica content consistent with that required by the claimed invention.
As to claims 10-12, the claimed wavelengths are consistent with dyes and pigments conventionally used in resin compositions, including carbon black (can be viewed as a dye).
Regarding claims 15 and 29, Paragraph 3 refers to security cards.
With respect to claims 17 and 22, the claimed thickness values are consistent with those that are conventionally associated with titanium dioxide-filled layers designed to be opacification layers.
As to claims 18 and 30, the claimed transmittance would be expected to be present in the opacification layer of Hardwick as it is formed with the same materials of the claimed invention.
4. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardwick, Ueno, and Godey as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Germroth (US 2005/0136271, of record).
As detailed above, Hardwick is directed to security cards comprising a layer formed with polyester. In such an instance, though, Hardwick is silent with respect to specific types of polyester. In any event, the claimed type of polyester is consistent with that which is conventionally used in layers of security cards, as shown for example by Germroth (Paragraph 3 and 19). Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional types of polyester, including that required by the claimed invention, in the security card of Hardwick.
5. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardwick, Ueno, and Godey as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Ohta (US 2003/0062420, of record).
As detailed above, Hardwick is directed to security cards comprising a layer formed with polyester. In such an instance, though, Hardwick is silent with respect to specific types of polyester. In any event, the claimed type of polyester is consistent with that which is conventionally used in layers of security cards, as shown for example by Ohta (Abstract and Paragraph 79). Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional types of polyester, including that required by the claimed invention, in the security card of Hardwick.
6. Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardwick, Ueno, and Godey as applied in claim 16 above and further in view of Sakagami (US 2011/0123766, of record).
As detailed above, Hardwick is directed to security cards comprising a titanium dioxide-containing layer. In such an instance, though, Hardwick is silent with respect to surface roughness values. In any event, the claimed surface roughness values are consistent with those that are commonly associated with similar card assemblies, as shown for example by Sakagami (Paragraph 100). More particularly, Sakagami teaches a first surface roughness between 0.9 and 1.6 microns and a second surface roughness between 0.7 microns and 1.2 microns, suggesting, at a minimum, differences between 0.4 microns and 0.9 microns (when first surface roughness is 1.6 microns, for example). Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the claimed surface roughness values in the card of Hardwick.
7. Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardwick, Ueno, and Godey as applied in claim 21 above and further in view of the Admitted Prior Art.
As detailed above, Hardwick is directed to security cards comprising a titanium dioxide-containing layer. In such an instance, though, Hardwick is silent with respect to the inclusion of a laser marking layer or a layer containing a colorant that emits visible light by irradiation with UV light or infrared light. In any event, the claimed layers are consistent with conventional arrangements of card assemblies, as shown for example by the Admitted Prior Art (Paragraphs 49 and 50). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional layers in the security card of Hardwick as modified by Ueno.
8. Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-18, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monden (EP 2610308, of record).
Monden is directed to a resin composition comprising polycarbonate (thermoplastic resin) and 3-30 parts of titanium oxide (Paragraphs 26, 383, and 393). Monden also states that said composition can include a polycarbonate resin and another thermoplastic resin, such as a polyester resin (Paragraph 79). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed polyester loadings obvious given that said composition can solely include polycarbonate or include a combination of polycarbonate and polyester (suggests a minor proportion of polyester at loadings greater than 0).
Monden further states that said titanium oxide has a preferred particle diameter between 0.1 microns and 0.4 microns (Paragraph 387). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use particle sizes between 0.22 microns and 0.26 microns since such a range of particle sizes is fully encompassed by the disclosed range and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed invention. This is particularly evident from Tables 1 and 2 in which the comparative examples have particle sizes of 0.20 microns and 0.21 microns (lack of comparative examples with particle sizes greater than 0.26 microns- would be required to establish a criticality for the claimed particle size range).
Monden further states that said titanium oxide can be surface treated with aluminum and silica such that the amount or content of the aluminum and silica is between 1% and 15% with reference to the titanium oxide (Paragraph 389). This range is seen to fully encompass the claimed range and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed contents (a multitude of parameters, including the particle size, contends, and materials, have been varied such that is unclear if any realized benefits are a function of the contents).
Additionally, the resin composition of Monden includes a dye or pigment (Paragraphs 156). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the claimed loadings as being consistent with dyes and pigments conventionally used in resin compositions (exact dye loading would be a function of the desired color).
Regarding claim 2, Monden teaches the inclusion of polysiloxanes (corresponds with claimed organic substance layer)(Paragraph 388).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, given the contents identified above and a ratio Si/Al between 0.53 and 9, it reasons that the titanium dioxide of Monden would demonstrate a difference in silica content consistent with that required by the claimed invention.
As to claim 8, the titanium oxide loading is between 3 and 30 parts.
Regarding claims 10-12, the resin composition of Monden includes a dye or pigment as detailed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the claimed wavelengths as being consistent with dyes and pigments conventionally used in resin compositions. Additionally, carbon black represents one of the most well-known and conventional colorants (pigments or particles) used in a multitude of applications.
With respect to claim 13, the resin composition include an antioxidant (Paragraph 156) and the claimed loadings are consistent with those conventionally associated with additives (included at small or minor amounts).
As to claim 14, the resin composition of Monden includes an antistatic agent (Paragraph 156).
Regarding claim 15, the claims are directed to a composition having an intended use and such fails to further define the structure or makeup of the claimed composition.
With respect to claims 17 and 22, Monden states that the “shape, design, color,, and size” is not particularly limited (Paragraph 246)- such a disclosure is seen to encompass the broad range of the claimed invention and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
As to claim 18, the claimed transmittance would be expected to be present in the titanium oxide-containing layer of Monden as it is formed with the same materials of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 10-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 November 4, 2025