Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/456,778

RETRANSFER PRINTING WITH NON-LINEAR PEEL-OFF

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Aug 28, 2023
Examiner
FEGGINS, KRISTAL J
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Entrust Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
832 granted / 923 resolved
+22.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
942
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§102
46.2%
+6.2% vs TC avg
§112
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 923 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions 2. Claims 18-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/29/2025. 3. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 7/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims can be done without undue burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because (a)the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and (c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 5. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 9, claim 9 does not contain any new limitations not presented in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Claim(s) 1-8 & 10- 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieck et al. (2015/0217549). Rieck et al. disclose the following claimed limitations: * Re clms 1 & 10, a retransfer printing method on a personalized credential/substrate. card/ (Abst., para 0001, figs 1-14); * printing data within an image canvas/surface 108 of transfer ribbon 100/ of transferrable print receptive material on a retransfer film/102, transfer ribbon 100/ by aligning thermally transferrable color material on a ribbon/print ribbon 116/ with the image canvas/surface 108 of transfer ribbon 100/ and transferring thermally transferrable color material from the ribbon/print ribbon 116, transfer ribbon 100/ onto at least a portion of the transferrable print receptive material/100/ within the image canvas/surface 108/ using a thermal print head/126/ (paras 0048-0051, 0056-0058, 0060, 0064, clm 1, figs 1-7); * after printing the data, aligning peel-off material on a ribbon with the image canvas of the transferrable print receptive material on the retransfer film, and adhering a portion of the peel-off material to a peel-off area of the transferrable print receptive material within the image canvas using a thermal print head/126/ (paras 0048-0051, 0056-0060, 0064, clm 1, figs 1-7); * wherein the adhered portion of the peel-off material/removal area 186/ has a trailing edge with a non-linear repeating or random pattern/perforated line/ (paras 0075-0083, figs 10-14) * peeling the transferrable print receptive material within the peel-off area from the retransfer film thereby forming a void area in the transferrable print receptive material of the image canvas (paras 0048-0051, 0056-0060, 0064, clm 1, figs 1-7); * advancing the retransfer film/100/ and the printed data of the image canvas to a transfer station/laminating roller and platen 151/, and transferring a portion of the image canvas of the transferrable print receptive material bearing the printed data and the void area/spaces/ to a surface of the personalized credential/substrate 114, surface 150/ (paras 0048-0051, 0056-0060, 0064, clm 1, figs 1-7). * Re clms 2 & 11, wherein the adhered portion of the peel-off material/removal area 186 of the transfer layer 102/ has a trailing edge/190/ with a non-linear repeating or random pattern/perforated line/ (paras 0075-0083, figs 10-14). * Re clms 3 & 12, wherein the adhered portion of the peel-off material has first and second side edges/186 of the transfer layer 186 that is to be removed from the transfer section 152/ that extend between and interconnect the leading edge and the trailing edge/190/, and the first and second side edges are parallel to one another (paras 0075-0083, figs 10-14). * Re clms 4 & 13, wherein the non-linear repeating or random pattern comprises a plurality of projections and indentations (see figs 11 & 12). * Re clms 5 & 14, wherein the non-linear repeating or random pattern/perforated line, 192/ comprises crenellations/other features on the surface of the substrate/ (para 0057, figs 10-12), * Re clms 6 & 15, wherein the personalized credential/card substrate 114, surface 150/ includes a signature panel, and the void area is disposed over the signature panel (paras 0004, 0010, 0057, figs 2-7). * Re clms 7 & 16, wherein the personalized credential/card substrate 114, surface 150/ includes a magnetic strip, and the void area is disposed over the magnetic strip (paras 0004, 0010, 0048, 0057-0058, figs 2-7). * Re clms 8 & 17, wherein the personalized credential includes an integrated circuit chip, and the void area is disposed over the integrated circuit chip/other features on the surface of the substrate or card/ (paras 0001, 0004, 0010, 0057, figs 2-7). * Re cln 10, a retransfer print station of a personalized credential processing system, * a thermal print head/126/; * a retransfer film/transfer ribbon 100/ having a layer of transferrable print receptive material/surface 108 of the transfer layer 102/ (figs 1-2; * a ribbon/116/ having a peel-off material; * a transfer station/print platen 128 and print head 126/; * a controller/130/ that is programmed to control the thermal print head/126/, the retransfer film/100/, the ribbon/116/, and the transfer station/print platen 128 and print head 126/; (paras 0040, 0052, 0053, figs 1-6). Rieck et al. does not disclose the following claimed limitations: * wherein the adhered portion of the peel-off material has a leading edge with a non-linear repeating or random pattern; However there are a finite number of possibilities for placement of a removal area (i.e. leading edge, trailing edge, leading side and trailing side, being one of 4 likely surfaces). As stated in the MPEP 2143, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is indicia of obviousness. Here, there are 4 likely placement locations for the removal area tab, any of the four sides areas. The Examiner sees no patentable distinction between any of these 4 likely options. As stated in the MPEP 2143, a simple substitution of one know element for another to obtain predictable results is indicia of obviousness. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adhered portion of the peel-off material having a leading edge with a non-linear repeating or random pattern, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70(CCPA 1950). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize wherein the adhered portion of the peel-off material has a leading edge with a non-linear repeating or random pattern for the purpose of preventing tearing of the transfer layer. Conclusion 9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTAL FEGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-530pm. 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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached at 571-431-0716. 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. /KRISTAL FEGGINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 28, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 30, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600154
PRINTER APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600132
HEAD CHIP, LIQUID JET HEAD, LIQUID JET RECORDING DEVICE, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING HEAD CHIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600122
LIQUID DISCHARGE HEAD AND RECORDING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600146
CONTROL DEVICE, PRINTER APPARATUS, AND CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600135
POLYMER BASED CONDUCTIVE PATHS FOR FLUIDIC DIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+8.1%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 923 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month