DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed 3/27/2026 has been entered. Currently, claims 1-3 and 6-24 are pending, claims 4 and 5 are canceled and claims 17, 18 and 22-24 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoki et al. (JP 2012-143872), machine translation included, as evidenced by “Bismuth (III) oxide safety data sheet” (https://prochemonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/1252.BismuthIIIOxide-1.pdf).
With regard to claims 1-3, 6-8, 13, 15, 19 and 20, Yokoki et al. teach the Example 1 having an over sheet having a 100 micron thickness made from the polycarbonate (A-1) that is made from an isosorbide dihydroxy at 50 mol%, which reads on applicants’ resin layer (a) having a structural unit (A1) derived from a dihydroxy having a moiety of formula (1), and a core sheet that includes a polycarbonate and a color former of mica coated with doped tin oxide (B-1), which reads on applicants’ resin layer (b) having a laser color developer of a metal oxide [0061]-[0065]. The metal oxide color former may also be bismuth oxide, and the color former can have a particle size of 20 microns of less and can be present in the layer from 1 to 10% by mass [0043], [0046] and [0047]. These layers are laminated together to form a card and can be laser marked [0065] and [0070].
Yokoki et al. also teach that it is known in the art to blend polycarbonate resins made from bisphenol A, e.g. the aromatic polycarbonate (A-2) of the examples, with the polycarbonates made from the dihydroxy compound having a moiety of formula (1) used as the main component of the color developing layer to improve the heat resistance and moldability [0011], [0035] and [0061]; however, the prior art does not specifically teach a blended bisphenol A, the average particle diameter of the laser color developer or the content of the laser color developer claimed.
Since blending of a bisphenol A polycarbonate is explicitly suggested in the reference, it would have been obvious to have blended a bisphenol A polycarbonate with the polycarbonate (A-1) in order to improve the heat resistance and moldability of the laminate layers. The resultant color development layer having bisphenol A polycarbonate blended therein reads on applicants’ resin layer (b) having a polycarbonate resin (B) other than the polycarbonate resin (A) of the resin layer (a).
The Examiner also notes that the particle size and the mass percent of color former taught in the prior art overlaps with the average particle diameter and content per unit area claimed. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used bismuth oxide color former as the color former in any amount taught within the range of the prior art, including from 1.7 to 8.6 mass% of the layer, and to have made the average particle diameter any amount within the range taught in the prior art, including from 0.1 to 2 microns as claimed. As evidenced by the “Bismuth (III) oxide safety data sheet”, Bismuth oxide has a specific gravity of approximately 8.93 g/cm3, which means the content per unit area of bismuth oxide present at 1.7 to 8.6 mass% of the layer would be approximately 30 to 154 microgram/cm2 (= 8.93 x 106 x 0.017 x 2 x 10-4 and = 8.93 x 106 x 0.086 x 2 x 10-4).
The inventive polycarbonate resin (A-1) of the prior art has a Tg of from 90 to 130 C [0036] and bisphenol A has a Tg of approximately 145 to 150 C, which means the polycarbonate (B) rendered obvious above has a glass transition temperature higher than the glass transition temperature of the polycarbonate (A).
With regard to claims 10-12, the Rz of the over sheet and the core sheet are in the range claimed, i.e. 15 and 5 microns [0063]-[0065]. Given that the card rendered obvious above is made of the same polycarbonates as claimed and has the same Rz as claimed, the over sheet and core sheet of Yokoki et al. will intrinsically possess the same kurtosis (Rku), and arithmetic average roughness (Ra) as claimed.
With regard to claims 14, 16 and 19, please note that the preamble “passport” or the intended use of passport in claims 14, 16 and 19 are being interpreted as a statement of intended use and does not result in a structural difference; further, the card of Yokoki et al. could be used as a passport card, which would read on the intended use of a passport as claimed.
With regard to claim 21, the card with the magnetic stripe may satisfy a JIS credit card standard [0066].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the card of Yokoki et al. into a credit card as this is one of the known uses of magnetic stripe cards and the card meets the standards of a credit card. Credit cards have a standard size of approximately 8.56 x 5.4 cm, which would be an area of approximately 46.2 cm2 and would read on this claim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoki et al. (JP 2012-143872) in view of Kubokawa (JP 2019-025754), machine translation included.
Yokoki et al. render obvious all of the limitations of claim 1 above; however, they do not specifically teach a sublimation thermal transfer image receiving layer on one of the resin layer (a) or the resin layer (b).
Kubokawa teaches laser color developing card that can have a sublimation thermal transfer image receiving layer 40 on an over sheet 20 of the card [0036], [0049], [0068] and Figure 3B.
Since Yokoki et al. and Kubokawa are both drawn to laser color developing cards made of polycarbonate, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have combined in the sublimation thermal transfer image receiving layer of Kubokawa on the over sheet layer of Yokoki et al. The results of such a combination would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill; further, each of the elements would have performed the same in combination as they had separately. The rationale to add this layer is to add for full color printing along with the laser coloring of the color former.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/27/2026, with respect to the claim objections and the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The relevant objections/rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue on page 8 of their Remarks that the prior art does not teach or suggest the new limitations claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Yokoki et al. suggest a laminate and card having a blend of polycarbonate resins. The bisphenol A resin rendered obvious above will have a Tg greater than that of the resin (A-1) of the prior art. Also, the prior art teaches a range of particle sizes for the color former and a range of mass % that the color former may be included in the layer, wherein these ranges overlap with the average particle size and content claimed. As such, the Examiner has set forth a proper prima facie case of obviousness above.
Applicants argue on pages 8-9 of that the laminate of the claims has unexpected results that would overcome the obviousness rejection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that applicants’ claims are not commensurate in scope with the evidence provided. The polycarbonates (A) and (B) of the claims are broader in scope than the polycarbonates used in the Examples 1-6.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Gerard Higgins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights