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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant filed a response and amended claim 1, 5, 8, 13, and 18 on 07/09/2026.
Response to Argument
Arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claim 1, 5, 8, 13, and 18 and claim 13. The new grounds of rejection addressing the amended claims are presented below.
Regarding claim 8-9 and 13-15, Applicant argues:
“Szumski is silent as to cutting the first film layer from a center section of a first
polymer web and not either of opposite outer sections of the first polymer web. Barborik's disclosure of trimming raised edge beads from an extruded film does not teach or suggest cutting the claimed first film layer from the center section of a first polymer web while excluding both outer sections for use in the card construction. Removing edge-bead defects to obtain a uniform film surface is different from cutting the first film layer from the center section of the polymer web and retaining that first film layer in the card as part of the split core front layer assembly.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cutting bead portions at the ends of the film would appear to read on the claim requiring cutting the outer sections of the polymer web. Given the continuous molding of the polymer web Szumski in view of Barborik and cutting the continuous polymer web in order to obtain sheets (Szumski, [0034]-[0038]) and discarding the raised edges as taught by Barborik, the first film layer of Szumski in view of Barborik appear to be cut from a center section of the polymer web.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szumski (PG-PUB 2018/0232616) in view of Foley (PG-PUB 2012/0132339).
Regarding claim 1, Szumski teaches a process (Figure 7) comprising:
obtaining a first film layer (Figures 3 and 5, items 306 and [0024]-[0025], [0035]-[0037]]);
combining the first film layer with a reflective or refractive body containing layer to form a core layer assembly (Figure 3, item 310 and [0020], [0021]-[0023], [0029], [0031]- [0033]), the reflective or refractive body-containing layer providing one or more of a functional feature or decorative feature of a card to be manufactured using the first film layer and the core layer assembly (Figure 6 and 7 and [0020], [0021]-[0023], [0029]-[0032], [0035]-[0039] ),
wherein the core layer assembly is a split core front layer assembly of the card (Figure 3 and 5, and [0029]),
wherein the first film layer and the reflective or refractive body-containing
layer are included in the split core front layer assembly of the card (Figure 6 and 5, [0029]-[0033]),
wherein the card includes a split core back layer assembly (Figure 6, item 508), a front overlay layer disposed on the split core front layer assembly (Figure 6, item 502 or 504and [0019], [0029]-[0030], [0048]), and a back overlay layer disposed beneath the split core back layer assembly (Figure 6, item 502 or 504 and [0019], [0029]-[0030], [0048]), and
wherein the first film layer and the reflective or refractive body-containing
layer are disposed inward of the front overlay layer in the card (Figure 6, [0029]-[0030]).
Szumski teaches the first film layer (i.e., supporting layer 306) supports the emboss coating layer 308 and the conductive material 310 when the conductive material 310 is formed or deposited on the emboss coating layer 308, and the first film layer includes or is formed from PET, but optionally may include or be formed from PVC, PC, PETG, acrylic, or another type of material [0024].
Szumski teaches the filmic layer (i.e., the combination of a supporting layer 306, emboss coating layer 308, reflective and/or refractive layer 310, tie coat layer 312, and adhesive layer 304) may be more than 2 mils [0027].
Szumski teaches the film layer may be referred to as a carrier or printable layer, as images, text, and the like, representative of the card, the owner of the card, a financial institution, or the like, can be printed onto this layer 306 [0024].
Szumski does not teach obtaining a first film layer having a maximum thickness that is no greater than 0.18 mils.
Foley teaches the laminate comprises a film material, wherein the film later may be PET,PETG, and PVC [0022]-[0023]. Foley teaches the film material has a thickness in the range of 0.25 mils to approximately 2 mils (6.35 micrometer to 50.8 micrometer) [0022] or a thickness of approximately 1 micrometer to approximately 50 micrometer (0.039 mils to 1.97 mils) [0023]. Foley teaches the film material can be printed with a text or pattern [0022], and the film material can serve as a carrier for coatings can be applied to the film material [0023].
Both Szumski and Foley are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to card laminate manufacturing using a base film to be laminated with other layers. Szumski does not teach the particular thickness of the first film layer, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the process of Szumski, in particular the film layer thickness, with the base film layer thickness as taught by Foley, a known suitable polymeric film thickness for adequately supporting a coating layer and providing a print, to yield the predictable result of provide a film layer suitable for card laminates.
In the case where the claimed ranged “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Szumski in view of Foley teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the first film layer is formed from PET (Szumski, [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Szumski in view of Foley teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the first film layer is formed from one or more of PET, PC, PVC (Szumski, [0024]).
Claims 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szumski (PG-PUB 2018/0232616) in view of Foley (PG-PUB 2012/0132339), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Pyo (PG-PUB 2017/0313118).
Regarding claim 5, Szumski in view of Foley teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the split core back layer is formed from a second film layer (Szumski, Figure 6, item 508 and [0024], [0029], [0035]-[0039]).
Szumski in view of Foley does not explicitly teach the second film layer having a minimum thickness of at least 4 mils.
Pyo teaches a multilayer plastic card including at least one polyester resin layer, wherein the thickness of the polyester resin layer may be 10 microns to 350 microns (0.39 mils to 13.78 mils) [0044], [0099].
Both Szumski and Pyo are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to card laminate manufacturing using a base film to be laminated with other layers. Szumski does not teach the particular thickness of the first film layer, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the process of Szumski, in particular the film layer thickness, with the film layer thickness as taught by Pyo, a known suitable polyester film thickness, to yield the predictable result of provide a film layer suitable for card laminates.
In the case where the claimed ranged “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Szumski in view of Foley and Pyo teaches the process as applied to claim 5, wherein the second film includes one or more of a PVC or PET (Szumski, [0024]).
Claims 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szumski (PG-PUB 2018/0232616) in view of Foley (PG-PUB 2012/0132339), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Charles (GB 2225283).
Regarding claim 7, Szumski in view of Foley teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Szumski in view of Foley does not teach the first film layer is formed with polymer grains oriented along a first grain direction that is transverse to a second grain direction in which polymer grains of a second film layer in the card are oriented.
Charles teaches a process of manufacturing a card comprising a plurality of layers of plastic materials (Page 1, ln 18-35). Charles teaches by taking account of the inherent grain structure of the plastic layers by orienting two layers with their grain direction transverse, the susceptibility to cracking is reduced (Page 1, ln 26-Page 2, ln 8; Page 3, ln 21- Page 4, ln 14).
Both Szumski and Charles are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing cards with a plurality of plastic layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Szumski with the technique of Charles by orienting the first film layer and second film layers such that the polymer grains of the layers are transverse, to yield the benefit of reducing susceptibility to damages.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szumski (PG-PUB 2018/0232616) in view of Foley (PG-PUB 2012/0132339), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Barborik (“Steady-state modeling of extrusion cast film process, neck-in phenomenon, and related experimental research: A review”, Physics of Fluids 32, 061302 (2020)).
Regarding claim 8 and 9, Szumski in view of Foley teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the first film layer obtained by cutting a laminated filmic web into one or more smaller sheets from the continuous web (Szumski, [0036]-[0038]).
Szumski in view of Foley does not teach:
the obtaining the first film layer includes forming the first film layer by cutting the first film layer from a first polymer web with the first film layer cut from a center section of the first polymer web,
wherein the first polymer web includes the center section and opposite outer sections, the first film layer is cut from the center section and not either of the outer sections of the first polymer web.
Barborik teaches extrusion film casting is a conventional technique for manufacturing a wide range of plastic films and sheets, such as plastic bags, packaging, flexible electronics, etc. (Page 3 and 4, Section I and A). Barborik teaches manufacturing films made of PET (Page 4). Barborik teaches extrusion film casting is often associated with defects due to (A) a neck-in phenomenon (Page 6-19, Section A and Figure 7) and (B) edge-beading (Page 20 -21, Section B). Barborik teaches the edge-beading or the dog-bone defect, is formed making the edge portions of the film substantially thicker than its central part (Fig. 10), wherein the size of these raised parts can be five times higher compared to the center and several centimeters wide, causing poor film quality and encouraging air entrapment between the film and chill roll (Page 20-21). Barborik teaches the raised edges are often trimmed and scrapped to achieve a uniform film surface.
Szumski does not teach how the first film layer is prepared, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art too look elsewhere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Szumski with the extrusion film casting steps of Barborik, a known suitable technique for manufacturing polymeric films, to yield the predictable result of manufacturing the polymeric first film layer of Szumski.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Szumski in view of Foley and Barborik with the steps of trimming the raised edges of the polymer web as taught by Barborik to remove defects and obtain a uniform thickness of the film.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have cut the film polymer web from the center section and not either of the outer sections of the first polymer web to cut the appropriate size of the first film layer with uniform thickness, as suggested by Barborik.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szumski (PG-PUB 2018/0232616) in view of Barborik (“Steady-state modeling of extrusion cast film process, neck-in phenomenon, and related experimental research: A review”, Physics of Fluids 32, 061302 (2020)).
Regarding claim 13, Szumski teaches a process (Figure 7) comprising:
obtaining a first film layer (Figures 3 and 5, items 306 and [0024]-[0025], [0035]-[0037]);
combining the first film layer with a reflective or refractive body containing layer to form a core layer assembly (Figure 3, item 310 and [0020], [0021]-[0023], [0029], [0031]- [0033]), the reflective or refractive body-containing layer providing one or more of a functional feature or decorative feature of a card to be manufactured using the first film layer and the core layer assembly (Figure 6 and 7 and [0020], [0021]-[0023], [0029]-[0032], [0035]-[0039] ),
wherein the core layer assembly is a split core front layer assembly of the card (Figure 3 and 5, and [0029]),
wherein the first film layer and the reflective or refractive body-containing
layer are included in the split core front layer assembly of the card (Figure 6 and 5, [0029]-[0033]),
wherein the card includes a split core back layer assembly (Figure 6, item 508), a front overlay layer disposed on the split core front layer assembly (Figure 6, item 502 or 504and [0019], [0029]-[0030], [0048]), and a back overlay layer disposed beneath the split core back layer assembly (Figure 6, item 502 or 504 and [0019], [0029]-[0030], [0048]), and
wherein the first film layer and the reflective or refractive body-containing
layer are disposed inward of the front overlay layer in the card (Figure 6, [0029]-[0030]).
Szumski teaches the first film layer (i.e., supporting layer 306) supports the emboss coating layer 308 and the conductive material 310 when the conductive material 310 is formed or deposited on the emboss coating layer 308, and the first film layer includes or is formed from PET, but optionally may include or be formed from PVC, PC, PETG, acrylic, or another type of material [0024].
Szumski teaches the filmic layer (i.e., the combination of a supporting layer 306, emboss coating layer 308, reflective and/or refractive layer 310, tie coat layer 312, and adhesive layer 304) may be more than 2 mils [0027].
Szumski teaches the film layer may be referred to as a carrier or printable layer, as images, text, and the like, representative of the card, the owner of the card, a financial institution, or the like, can be printed onto this layer 306 [0024].
Szumski does not teach cutting a first film layer from a center section of the first polymer web, wherein the first polymer web includes the center section and opposite outer sections, and the first film layer is cut from the center section and not either of the outer sections of the first polymer web.
Barborik teaches extrusion film casting is a conventional technique for manufacturing a wide range of plastic films and sheets, such as plastic bags, packaging, flexible electronics, etc. (Page 3 and 4, Section I and A). Barborik teaches manufacturing films made of PET (Page 4). Barborik teaches extrusion film casting is often associated with defects due to (A) a neck-in phenomenon (Page 6-19, Section A and Figure 7) and (B) edge-beading (Page 20 -21, Section B). Barborik teaches the edge-beading or the dog-bone defect, is formed making the edge portions of the film substantially thicker than its central part (Fig. 10), wherein the size of these raised parts can be five times higher compared to the center and several centimeters wide, causing poor film quality and encouraging air entrapment between the film and chill roll (Page 20-21). Barborik teaches the raised edges are often trimmed and scrapped to achieve a uniform film surface.
Szumski does not teach how the first film layer is prepared, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Szumski with the extrusion film casting steps of Barborik, a known suitable technique for manufacturing polymeric films, to yield the predictable result of manufacturing the polymeric first film layer of Szumski.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the steps of trimming the raised edges of the polymer web as taught by Barborik in the process of Szumski in view of Barborik to remove defects and obtain a uniform thickness of the film.
Given the continuous molding of the polymer web and discarding the raised edges of Barborik, the first film layer of Szumski would naturally be cut from the remaining polymer web, or the center section. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have cut the film layer from the center section and not either of the outer sections of the first polymer web to cut the appropriate size of the first film layer with uniform thickness.
Regarding claim 14, Szumski in view of Barborik teaches the process as applied to claim 13, wherein the first film layer is formed from PET (Szumski, [0019], [0024]).
Regarding claim 15, Szumski in view of Barborik teaches the process as applied to claim 13, wherein the first film layer is formed from one or more of PET, PC, or PVC (Szumski, [0019], [0024]).
Claims 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szumski (PG-PUB 2018/0232616) in view of Barborik (“Steady-state modeling of extrusion cast film process, neck-in phenomenon, and related experimental research: A review”, Physics of Fluids 32, 061302 (2020)), as applied to claim 13, in further view of Foley (PG-PUB 2012/0132339).
Regarding claim 17, Szumski in view of Barborik teaches the process as applied to claim 13.
Szumski teaches the film layer may be referred to as a carrier or printable layer, as images, text, and the like, representative of the card, the owner of the card, a financial institution, or the like, can be printed onto this layer 306 [0024].
Szumski in view of Barborik does not teach obtaining a first film layer having a maximum thickness that is no greater than 0.18 mils.
Foley teaches the laminate comprises a film material, wherein the film later may be PET,PETG, and PVC [0022]-[0023]. Foley teaches the film material has a thickness in the range of 0.25 mils to approximately 2 mils (6.35 micrometer to 50.8 micrometer) [0022] or a thickness of approximately 1 micrometer to approximately 50 micrometer (0.039 mils to 1.97 mils) [0023]. Foley teaches the film material can be printed with a text or pattern [0022], and the film material can serve as a carrier for coatings can be applied to the film material [0023].
Both Szumski and Foley are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to card laminate manufacturing using a base film to be laminated with other layers. Szumski does not teach the particular thickness of the first film layer, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the process of Szumski, in particular the film layer thickness, with the base film layer thickness as taught by Foley, a known suitable polymeric film thickness for adequately supporting a coating layer and providing a print, to yield the predictable result of provide a film layer suitable for card laminates.
In the case where the claimed ranged “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szumski (PG-PUB 2018/0232616) in view of Barborik (“Steady-state modeling of extrusion cast film process, neck-in phenomenon, and related experimental research: A review”, Physics of Fluids 32, 061302 (2020)), as applied to claim 13, in further view of Pyo (PG-PUB 2017/0313118).
Regarding claim 18, Szumski in view of Barborik teaches the process as applied to claim 13, wherein the core layer assembly is a split core front layer assembly of the card (Szumski, Figure 2 and 6), and the first film layer is combined with the reflective or
refractive body-containing layer for inclusion in the card having a split core back layer
assembly formed from a second film layer (Szumski, Figure 2, item 110 and 504 and [0018], [0021]).
Szumski in view of Barborik does not explicitly teach a second film layer having a minimum thickness of at least 4.00 mils.
Pyo teaches a multilayer plastic card including at least one polyester resin layer, wherein the thickness of the polyester resin layer may be 10 microns to 350 microns (0.39 mils to 13.78 mils) [0044], [0099].
Both Szumski and Pyo are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to card laminate manufacturing using a base film to be laminated with other layers. Szumski does not teach the particular thickness of the first film layer, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the process of Szumski, in particular the film layer thickness, with the film layer thickness as taught by Pyo, a known suitable polyester film thickness, to yield the predictable result of providing a film layer suitable for card laminates.
In the case where the claimed ranged “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 19, Szumski in view of Barborik and Pyo teaches the process as applied to claim 18, wherein the second film includes one or more of a PVC or PET (Szumski, [0024]).
Claims 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szumski (PG-PUB 2018/0232616) in view of Barborik (“Steady-state modeling of extrusion cast film process, neck-in phenomenon, and related experimental research: A review”, Physics of Fluids 32, 061302 (2020)), as applied to claim 13, in further view of Charles (GB 2225283).
Regarding claim 20, Szumski in view of Barborik teaches the process as applied to claim 13.
Szumski in view of Barborik does not teach the first film layer is formed with polymer grains oriented along a first grain direction that is transverse to a second grain direction in which polymer grains of a second film layer in the card are oriented.
Charles teaches a process of manufacturing a card comprising a plurality of layers of plastic materials (Page 1, ln 18-35). Charles teaches by taking account of the inherent grain structure of the plastic layers by orienting two layers with their grain direction transverse, the susceptibility to cracking is reduced (Page 1, ln 26-Page 2, ln 8; Page 3, ln 21- Page 4, ln 14).
Both Szumski and Charles are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing cards with a plurality of plastic layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Szumski with the technique of Charles by orienting the first film layer and second film layers such that the polymer grains of the layers are transverse, to yield the benefit of reducing susceptibility to damages.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights