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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Claims 14-23, 27 and 28 are examined on the merits in this office action.
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, 27 and 28 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 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, 15, 17, 19-21, 23, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riedl (DE 102017001361 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 14, 15, 17 and 27, Riedl discloses a film structure comprising three layers with all layers being laser-doped and transparent (see paragraph 0045, lines 493-494). Further, at least one layer is formed of PLA, polycarbonate, a mixture of polycarbonate and polyethylene terephthalate glycol, etc. (see paragraph 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any polymer for the three layers including two outer layers comprising PLA and an inner layer comprising a mixture of polycarbonate and polyethylene terephthalate glycol, wherein the inner layer is between two outer layers. That is, a first layer comprises PLA, a second layer comprises a mixture of polycarbonate (first plastic) and polyethylene terephthalate glycol (second plastic), and third layer comprises PLA. Accordingly, the second layer is PLA-free. The laser-doped layer comprises metal oxide as laser additive, wherein the metal oxide can be tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, etc. (see paragraph 0014, 0018, 0023). That is, the laser doped inner layer (second layer) comprises metal oxide (laser additive). Therefore, the second layer comprises a PLA-free laser polymer mixture. Given that there is no disclosure of other layers between the first layer and the second layer, and the second layer and the third layer, the first layer is attached directly to the second layer, and the second layer is attached directly to the third layer (see Figure 1). The film structure can be a card body, i.e. laminate for a cardlike data medium (see paragraphs 0028 and 0031).
In light of the overlap between the claimed laminate and that disclosed by Riedl, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a laminate that is both disclosed by Riedl and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 19-21, Riedl disclose the cardlike data medium as set forth above. Riedl disclose the laser additive can be a metal oxide such as tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, etc. (see paragraph 0023). Given that the laser additive is identical to that utilized in the present invention, the laser additive (tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide) necessarily inherently absorbs in an infrared region, or in a near infrared region, wherein wavelengths of at least 760 nm and at most 2500 nm are absorbable.
Regarding claim 23, Riedl disclose the cardlike data medium as set forth above. As noted above, Riedl 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 within a deviation of at most 10% as an extrusion temperature of PLA.
Regarding claim 28, Riedl disclose the cardlike data medium as set forth above. Riedl disclose the cardlike data medium comprising the first layer comprising PLA, the second layer comprising a mixture of polycarbonate and polyethylene terephthalate glycol, and laser absorbing additive, and the third layer comprising PLA as noted above.
Further, Riedl disclose at least one layer is laser doped, i.e. at least one layer contains laser absorbing additive (see paragraph 0030). Therefore, it is not required that the first layer and the third layer comprise laser absorbing additive. Accordingly, the first layer and the third layer comprise only PLA.
Claims 16, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riedl (DE 102017001361 A1 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Azuma et al. (JP2004243685A cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Azuma et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference (cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 16, 18 and 22, Riedl disclose the cardlike data medium as set forth above. While Riedl disclose the second layer (PLA-free layer) comprises a mixture of polycarbonate (first plastic) and polyethylene terephthalate glycol (second plastic), Riedl do not disclose a weight fraction of the first plastic and the weight fraction of the 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 the 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 metal oxides (laser absorbing additive) that absorbs laser beam (see paragraphs 0013-0014). 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 metal oxide) 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 ordinary skill in the art to use more than 50 wt% of polycarbonate (first plastic), less than 50 wt% of PETG (second plastic) and 0.1 to 10 parts by weight of metal oxide (laser absorbing additive) per 100 parts by weight of the resin composition in the second layer (PLA-free layer) of Riedl 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 second layer when irradiated with a laser beam, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 15, 17, 19-21, 23, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riedl (DE 102017001361 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Wurmfeld et al. (US 2016/0307081 A1).
Regarding claims 14, 15, 17, 27 and 28, Riedl discloses a film structure comprising a monolayer being laser-doped and transparent (see Figure 4, paragraph 0045, lines 499-500). Further, the monolayer can be made of a mixture of polycarbonate (first plastic) and polyethylene terephthalate glycol (second plastic) (see paragraph 0024). The monolayer is a laser-doped layer comprising metal oxide as laser additive, wherein the metal oxide can be tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, etc. (see paragraph 0014, 0018, 0023). Accordingly, the monolayer reads on a second layer (PLA-free layer) comprising a PLA-free laser polymer mixture. The film structure can be a card body, i.e. laminate for a cardlike data medium (see paragraphs 0028 and 0031).
Riedl do not disclose a first layer comprising polylactide and a third layer comprising polylactide, wherein the first layer is directly attached to the second layer and the second layer is directly attached to the third layer.
Wurmfeld et al. disclose a transaction card (cardlike data medium) comprising a top outermost layer 102 and a bottom outermost layer 136, both made of polylactic acid (PLA) (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 0015, 0034). PLA is scratch-resistant and /or scratch-proof material (see paragraph 0015).
In light of motivation for using outermost layers made of polylactic acid (PLA) disclosed by Wurmfeld et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use outermost layers made of polylactic acid (PLA) on each side of the second layer (monolayer) of Riedl in order to provide scratch resistance and/or scratch proofness, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Riedl in view of Wurmfeld et al. disclose the laminate for a cardlike data medium comprising the first layer comprising PLA, the second layer comprising a mixture of polycarbonate and polyethylene terephthalate glycol, and laser-absorbing additive and the third layer comprising PLA, wherein the first layer and the third layer comprise only PLA. Given that the laminate comprises only three layers, wherein the first layer and the third layer are outermost layers on each side of the second layer, the first layer is directly attached to the second layer and the second layer is directly attached to the third layer.
Regarding claims 19-21, Riedl in view of Wurmfeld et al. disclose the cardlike data medium as set forth above. Riedl disclose the second layer (PLA-free layer) comprises a metal oxide (laser additive) such as tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, etc. (see paragraph 0023). Given that the laser additive is identical to that utilized in the present invention, the laser additive (tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide) necessarily inherently absorbs in an infrared region, or in a near infrared region, wherein wavelengths of at least 760 nm and at most 2500 nm are absorbable.
Regarding claim 23, Riedl in view of Wurmfeld et al. disclose the cardlike data medium as set forth above. As noted above, Riedl discloses the second layer comprises 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 within a deviation of at most 10% as an extrusion temperature of PLA.
Claims 16, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riedl (DE 102017001361 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Wurmfeld et al. (US 2016/0307081 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Azuma et al. (JP2004243685A cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Azuma et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference (cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 16, 18 and 22, Riedl in view of Wurmfeld et al. disclose the cardlike data medium as set forth above. While Riedl disclose the second layer (PLA-free layer) comprises a mixture of polycarbonate (first plastic) and polyethylene terephthalate glycol (second plastic), Riedl in view of Wurmfeld et al. do not disclose a weight fraction of the first plastic and the weight fraction of the 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 the 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 metal oxides (laser absorbing additive) that absorbs laser beam (see paragraphs 0013-0014). 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 metal oxide) 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 ordinary skill in the art to use more than 50 wt% of polycarbonate (first plastic), less than 50 wt% of PETG (second plastic) and 0.1 to 10 parts by weight of metal oxide (laser absorbing additive) per 100 parts by weight of the resin composition in the second layer (PLA-free layer) of Riedl in view of Wurmfeld 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 second layer when irradiated with a laser beam, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above. All arguments except as set forth below are moot in light of new grounds of rejections.
As to claim 14, the Applicant respectfully submits that the recitation of a "cardlike data medium" is sufficiently clear to one of ordinary skill in the art, especially in view of the present application. For example, the present application recites various examples of "data media, examples being cardlike data media, more particularly credit cards, smart cards, dual-interface cards, or else identification documents, such as identity passes, for example." (para. [02] of the present application). The Applicant thus respectfully submits that the term "cardlike" in claim 14 is definite.
However, the scope of the claim is confusing given that it is not clear what is encompassed by the phrase or what is considered “cardlike”. It is suggested that the claim is amended to recite “a card data medium” in order to overcome 112(b) rejection.
In light of amendments, claim objections are withdrawn.
In light of amendments, 112(b) rejection of claim 23 is withdrawn.
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 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
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights