DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 14-23) in the reply filed on 03/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/05/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2024 is considered and signed IDS form is attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16, line 1 recites “the laser polymer mixture”, which should be “the PLA-free laser polymer mixture”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18, line 1 recites “the laser polymer mixture”, which should be “the PLA-free laser polymer mixture”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19, line 1 recites “the laser additive”, which should be “the at least one laser additive”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20, line 2 recites “the absorbing material”, which should be “the material”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20, lines 2-3 recites “the laser additive”, which should be “the at least one laser additive”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21, line 1 recites “the laser additive”, which should be “the at least one laser additive”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 22, line 1 recites “the laser polymer mixture”, which should be “the PLA-free laser polymer mixture”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 22, line 2 recites “the laser additive”, which should be “the at least one laser additive”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “cardlike”. The scope of the claim is confusing given that it is not clear what is encompassed by the phrase or what is considered “cardlike”. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
Claim 23 recites “an extrusion temperature of the first plastic and/or an extrusion temperature of the second plastic is substantially the same as an extrusion temperature of PLA”. The scope of the claim is confusing given that it is not clear how close the extrusion temperatures need to be in ordered to be considered as “substantially same”.
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 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (JP2004202817A) in view of Azuma et al. (JP2004243685A). It is noted that the disclosures of Cho et al. and Azuma et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 14-18, 21 and 22, Cho et al. disclose an information recording medium such a cash card, a credit card or an identity card (laminate for a cardlike medium) comprising a layer 12 (first layer) made of a crystalline thermoplastic resin such as polylactic acid (PLA), a center core layer(s) 38 (second layer) made of amorphous thermoplastic resin such as blend of polycarbonate (first plastic) and PETG (second plastic), a layer 22 (third layer) made of a crystalline thermoplastic resin such as polylactic acid (PLA) (see Abstract, Figure 1 and paragraphs 0001, 0021, 0023, 0029). The center core layer(s) 38 can contain additives such as pigments (see paragraph 0029). Given that the center core layer(s) 38 do not contain polylactic acid, the center core layer(s) (second layer) is PLA-free. The information recording medium can be subjected to laser engraving (see paragraphs 0040, 0042).
Cho et al. do not disclose the center core layer(s) (second layer) comprises laser additive. Cho et al. do not disclose the center core layer(s) (second layer) comprises a weight fraction of polycarbonate (first plastic) and PETG (second plastic).
Azuma et al. disclose a sheet for a card comprising a color developing layer which develops color by being irradiated with a laser beam (see Abstract). The color developing layer comprises a resin composition mainly composed of a polycarbonate resin or a polymer alloy of polycarbonate resin (first plastic) and amorphous aromatic polyester resin (second plastic) such as PETG (see paragraphs 0006, 0018, 0023, 0025). Accordingly, the amount of polycarbonate is more than 50 wt% and amount of PETG is less than 50 wt%. A specific example of the color developing layer comprises the polymer alloy comprising 55 wt% polycarbonate and 45 wt% PETG (see paragraph 0043). The resin composition improves heat resistance of the card as well as prevents swelling or deforming of the color developing layer when irradiated with a laser beam (see paragraph 0018). The color developing layer comprises colorants such as carbon black (laser absorbing additive) that absorbs laser beam (see paragraphs 0013-0015). The amount of colorant is 0.1 to 10 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the resin composition (see paragraph 0015). Accordingly, the amount of colorant (laser absorbing additive or carbon black) is 0.1 to 9 wt%, which overlaps with that presently claimed.
In light of motivation for using color developing layer disclosed by Azuma et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use the color developing layer of Azuma et al. as the center core layer(s) in Cho et al. in order to develop color when irradiated with a laser beam and to improve heat resistance of the card as well as to prevent swelling or deforming of the color developing layer when irradiated with a laser beam, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Cho et al. in view of Azuma et al. disclose the laminate as set forth above. As noted above, Cho et al. in view of Azuma et al. disclose carbon black as the laser additive, which is identical to that presently claimed. Therefore, the laser additive (carbon black) necessarily inherently absorbs in the infrared region, or in the near infrared region, wherein wavelengths of at least 760 nm and at most 2500 nm are absorbable.
Regarding claim 23, Cho et al. in view of Azuma et al. disclose the laminate as set forth above. As noted above, Cho et al. in view of Azuma et al. disclose polycarbonate as first plastic and PETG as second plastic, which are identical to that presently claimed. Therefore, an extrusion temperature of the first plastic and/or an extrusion temperature of the second plastic is necessarily inherently substantially the same as an extrusion temperature of PLA.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanaka et al. (JP2009166312A) disclose a laminated card comprising protective sheets 101 and 105 made of polylactic acid resin, and core layers 102, 103 and 104 made of amorphous polyester resin such as PETG (see Figure 2 and paragraph 0023). It is noted that the disclosures of Tanaka et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights