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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1 and 13, cancelled claim 4, 16, and 21-33, and added new claims 34-39 on 10/02/2025.
Response to Argument
Arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claim 1 and claim 13.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant argues:
“Independent claim 13 recites a method that includes obtaining a first polymer web having a manufactured width, cutting a first film layer from a center section of the first polymer web, and combining the first film layer with a conductive body-containing layer to form a core layer assembly. 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.
Szumski is silent on how the polymer film is produced or subsequently divided.
Szumski merely discloses that a first film layer 104 is obtained and thereafter laminated. No cutting location is disclosed, let alone selection of only the center portion of a wider
web.
Barborik discusses edge-beading and neck-in that may occur during extrusion film casting. The reference proposes trimming small "raised edges" after the film has already been cast: ‘The raised edges are often trimmed with a slit razer, scrapped, and optionally reprocessed to achieve a uniform film surface.’
Trimming narrow bead portions along the edges is fundamentally different from
cutting the entire first film layer from the center section and intentionally discarding both
outer sections before any subsequent lamination. Barborik teaches removing only a minor bead (apparently only a few millimeters wide) to preserve as much film width as possible, whereas claim 13 involves discarding the full edge portions and retaining only the center strip.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained by Applicant, Barborik teaches trimming small “raised edges”. 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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szumski (PG-PUB 2018/0232616) in view of Vaidya (PG-PUB 2016/0096394).
Regarding claim 1, Szumski teaches a process (Figure 7) comprising:
obtaining a first film layer that is at least 2 mils thick (Figures 2, 3, and 6, items 104 and [0018]-[0019]);
applying the first film layer with a reflective or refractive body-containing layer to
form a core layer assembly (Figure 2, 4, and 6, item 106 and [0020]), 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 [0021]-[0027].
Szumski teaches the layer thickness of at least two mils thick, or smaller or larger than two mils [0019].
Szumski does not teach obtaining a first film layer having a maximum thickness that is no greater than 0.18 mils.
Vaidya teaches a process of manufacturing plastic cards [0001] comprising a base film (Figures 1 and 5 and [0035]). Vaidya teaches the base film function as a carrier for the top coat layer and as a protective layer to the top coat layer [0035]. Vaidya teaches the base film can be a polymeric film comprising polyester, polycarbonate, polypropylene, polyamide, polyimide, and the like [0036]. Vaidya teaches the base film has a thickness of between about 4 microns to about 400 microns [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Szumski, in particularly the film thickness, with the base film thickness of Vaidya, a known suitable thickness for polymeric base films in 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 Vaidya teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the first film layer is formed from PET (Szumski, [0019]).
Regarding claim 3, Szumski in view of Vaidya teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the first film layer is formed from one or more of PET, PC, PVC (Szumski, [0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Szumski in view of Vaidya teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the body-containing layer is conductive (Szumski, item 302 and [0020], [0021]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 11, Szumski in view of Vaidya teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the body-containing layer is nonconductive (Szumski, Figure 5 and 6, item 510 and [0030]).
Regarding claim 12, Szumski in view of Vaidya teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the body-containing layer is not clear (Szumski, item 302 and [0020], [0021]-[0023]).
Claims 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szumski (PG-PUB 2018/0232616) in view of Vaidya (PG-PUB 2016/0096394), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Herslow (US 6,644,552).
Regarding claim 5, Szumski in view of Vaidya teaches the process as applied to claim 1, 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 Vaidya does not explicitly teach a second film layer having a minimum thickness of at least 4.00 mils.
Herslow teaches a card comprising a plurality of layers and a split core. Herslow teaches a core layer comprising PET or PVC (Col 4, ln 5, ln 15). Herslow teaches the thickness of a single core 10 may range from less than 0.006 inches (6 mil) to close to 0.026 inches (26 mil), and in the case of a split core, the thickness of the two portions equal the thickness of the single core (Figure 2, 3a, and 3b item 10a and 10b and Col 3, ln 5- Col 4, ln 25). Accordingly, Herslow teaches in the case of a two split-core, the thickness would be 3 mil to 13 mil.
Both Szumski and Herslow are drawn to the same field endeavor pertaining to manufacturing multi-layered cards. Szumski is silent to the thickness of the second film layer, 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 PET or PVC core thickness of Herslow, a known suitable core layer thickness, to yield the predictable result of providing a suitable PET or PVC core in manufacturing a card.
Regarding claim 6, Szumski in view of Vaidya and Herslow teaches the process as applied to claim 5, wherein the second film includes one or more of a PVC or PET (Szumski, [0019]).
Claims 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szumski (PG-PUB 2018/0232616) in view of Vaidya (PG-PUB 2016/0096394), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Charles (GB 2225283).
Regarding claim 7, Szumski in view of Vaidya teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Szumski in view of Vaidya 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 Vaidya (PG-PUB 2016/0096394), 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 Vaidya teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Szumski in view of Vaidya does not teach the first film layer includes forming a first polymer layer includes by cutting the first polymer layer from the first polymer web with the first polymer layer cut 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 polymer 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 Vaidya 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.
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 having a manufactured width (Figures 2, 3, and 6, items 104 and [0018]-[0019]);
combining the first film layer with a conductive body-containing layer to form a
core layer assembly, the conductive 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 2, 4, and 6, item 106 and [0020]-[0027]; [0039]-[0040]).
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]).
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]).
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 Vaidya (PG-PUB 2016/0096394).
Regarding claim 17, Szumski in view of Barborik teaches the process as applied to claim 13. Szumski teaches the layer thickness of at least two mils thick, or smaller or larger than two mils [0019].
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.
Vaidya teaches a process of manufacturing plastic cards [0001] comprising a base film (Figures 1 and 5 and [0035]). Vaidya teaches the base film function as a carrier for the top coat layer and as a protective layer to the top coat layer [0035]. Vaidya teaches the base film can be a polymeric film comprising polyester, polycarbonate, polypropylene, polyamide, polyimide, and the like [0036]. Vaidya teaches the base film has a thickness of between about 4 microns to about 400 microns [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Szumski, in particularly the film thickness, with the base film thickness of Vaidya, a known suitable thickness for polymeric base films in 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 Herslow (US 6,644,552).
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.
Herslow teaches a card comprising a plurality of layers and a split core. Herslow teaches a core layer comprising PET or PVC (Col 4, ln 5, ln 15). Herslow teaches the thickness of a single core 10 may range from less than 0.006 inches (6 mil) to close to 0.026 inches (26 mil), and in the case of a split core, the thickness of the two portions equal the thickness of the single core (Figure 2, 3a, and 3b item 10a and 10b and Col 3, ln 5- Col 4, ln 25). Accordingly, Herslow teaches in the case of a two split-core, the thickness would be 3 mil to 13 mil.
Both Szumski and Herslow are drawn to the same field endeavor pertaining to manufacturing multi-layered cards. Szumski is silent to the thickness of the second film layer, 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 PET or PVC core thickness of Herslow, a known suitable core layer thickness, to yield the predictable result of providing a suitable PET or PVC core in manufacturing a card.
Regarding claim 19, Szumski in view of Barborik and Herslow teaches the process as applied to claim 18, wherein the second film includes one or more of a PVC or PET (Szumski, [0019]).
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 Szukski 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights