DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Election filed on 02/18/2026, claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 14-16 are withdrawn based on the restriction requirement. Claims 1-13 are considered in the current Office 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
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 02/18/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/18/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 6, 9, and 11-13 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.
The term “high” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, it is unclear as to how high the viscosity has to be in order to consider as high.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting any limitation following “in particular” as optional limitation.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting any limitation following “especially” as optional limitation.
Claims 12-13 are rejected by virtue of depending on a rejected claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2016/0039187 (“Crawford-Tayler et al” hereinafter Crawford-Tayler).
Regarding Claim 1, Crawford-Tayler teaches a method for producing a film having a security feature for a card-shaped data carrier ([0002],[0005] and [0033], a method of manufacturing a card assembly which might contains customizable images, text, numbers, symbols, or the like), which comprises the following steps:
providing at least one film material having a base color (Figure 2 and [0035], container body 208 for holding a supply material used to form the blocking layer 110 where the blocking layer 110 may be formed from a material that is white [0032]);
providing at least one coloring agent (Figure 2 and [0035], container body 210 for holding a supply material used to form the core layer 104 where the core layer 104 may be a visible color other than the color white [0032]);
introducing the film material into an extruder of an extrusion apparatus ([0035] and Figure 2, die 202);
heating the film material to form a melt ([0035], the materials may be heated in a fluid state in the container bodies 208);
separately heating the coloring agent to form a flowable color ([0035], the materials may be heated in a fluid state in the container bodies 210, which is a separate container body; thus the two materials are heated separately);
extruding the melt through a nozzle outlet gap of the extrusion apparatus (Figure 2 and [0035], die 202 has a nozzle outlet for extruding layer 110);
feeding the flowable color to the extruded melt to form a bead-like mixture (Figure 2 and [0035]. Die 204 feed layer 110);
mixing of the flowable color and the extruded melt within the bead-like mixture to form a film (Figure 2 and [0036], the sheets of the layers 104 , 110 can be fused together to form a single body (e.g., a sheet of the card assembly 100), wherein the extruded melt and the flowable color have different material properties so that they do not mix homogeneously ([0030], different materials might be selected for the core layer and the blocking layer and thus having different material properties and do not mix homogeneously and [0032] core and blocking layers may be different colors), whereby a randomized multi-coloring is visible in plan view of the film ([0032]).
Regarding Claim 6, Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flowable color is thermostable ([0030], core layer might be form of copolymerized PET material which is thermostable) and/or has a high viscosity.
Regarding Claim 7, Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flowable color is formed by an offset color ([0032], core layer may be black, orange, green, or the like which are example of offset color)or a radiation-crosslinking color, in particular a UV ink.
Regarding Claim 8, Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flowable color is fed to the extruded melt by means of a separate nozzle (Figure 2, die 204 has a nozzle outlet for extruding layer 104 that is separate from the nozzle of die 202) or by means of a nozzle of the extrusion apparatus.
Regarding Claim 10, Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the nozzle has at least one chamber for the flowable color (Figure 2 and [0035], container body 210 for holding a supply material used to form the core layer 104 where the core layer 104 may be a visible color other than the color white [0032]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2016/0039187 (“Crawford-Tayler et al” hereinafter Crawford-Tayler) as applied to claims 1 or 8 above, and further in view of EP2511094 (Kocher), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 2, Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Crawford-Tayler teaches the sheets of the layers 104, 110 can be physically bonded together by pushing the layers 104 , 110 together between mechanical rollers 206 (Figure 2 and [0036]) but fails to teach wherein the method also comprises the following steps: cooling of the film at a roller arrangement adjacent to the nozzle outlet gap comprising at least one cooling roller.
However, Kocher teaches cooling of the film at a roller arrangement adjacent to the nozzle outlet gap comprising at least one cooling roller (Figure 1, after the pressing process between the two rolls 50, the multilayer web 60 is first guided around a cooling roll 90 and [0070]).
Crawford-Tayler and Kocher are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing a multilayer structure with security feature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by Crawford-Tayler such that it discusses all of the above-mentioned limitations as taught by Kocher to remove residual heat and to hardened the film ([0039]).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the roller arrangement comprises at least two cooling rollers, wherein the bead-like mixture is conveyed between the cooling rollers (Kocher, [0070], web wrapping around a pair of cooling rolls).
Regarding Claim 5, Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Crawford-Tayler further teaches the blocking layer 110 may be formed from a plastic material ([0030]) that is white. Alternatively, the blocking layer 110 may be formed from a material that is another color ([0032]) but fails to teach wherein the film material having a transparent or opaque base color is formed.
However, Kocher teaches wherein the film material having a transparent or opaque base color is formed ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by Crawford-Tayler such that it discusses all of the above-mentioned limitations as taught by Kocher to manufacture a product with a viewing window that are transparent ([0059]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the plastic white film material disclosed by Crawford-Tayler by a transparent plastic material as taught by Kocher because utilizing one known plastic material in place of another plastic material also suitability in the field of manufacturing product with security feature is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 9, Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 8, but fails to teach wherein the nozzle is heated.
However, Kocher teaches wherein the nozzle is heated ([0029], the material of the plastic layer is supplied in the method with molten application of the plastic layer at a melt temperature, preferably on exit from the slot die, which implied that the nozzle is heated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by Crawford-Tayler such that it discusses all of the above-mentioned limitations as taught by Kocher to heat the nozzle as the molten material exit the nozzle to ensure the viscosity of the molten material ([0029]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2016/0039187 (“Crawford-Tayler et al” hereinafter Crawford-Tayler) and EP2511094 (Kocher), machine translation provided, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of WO2016/038868 (“Ono et al” hereinafter Ono), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 3, but fails to teach wherein a differential speed of the cooling rollers is set and/or the cooling rollers are operated alternately at different speeds.
However, Ono teaches a differential speed of the cooling rollers is set and/or the cooling rollers are operated alternately at different speeds (page 2, lines 42-45, the peripheral speed of the second cooling roll is V 2 and the peripheral speed of the third cooling roll is V 3, the value of V 3 / V 2 is 1.000 or more which means the two speeds are different).
Crawford-Tayler and Ono are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing a film structure with a plurality of rollers to shape a film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by Crawford-Tayler such that it discusses all of the above-mentioned limitations as taught by Ono to increase the in-plane retardation value (page 5, lines 30-32).
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2016/0039187 (“Crawford-Tayler et al” hereinafter Crawford-Tayler) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of DE102019005164 (Riedl), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 11, Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the nozzle has multiple chambers, especially a multi-chamber system, wherein a different flowable color is provided for each chamber.
However, Riedl teaches wherein the nozzle has multiple chambers, especially a multi-chamber system, wherein a different flowable color is provided for each chamber (Figure 3, dyeing chamber 5, dye from the individual dye chambers does not run together [0012]).
Crawford-Tayler and Riedl are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing a multilayer structure with security feature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by Crawford-Tayler such that it discusses all of the above-mentioned limitations as taught by Riedl to introduce various colors into the film and limited cross contamination of the dye ([0010]-[0011]).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the chambers are arranged mounted one after the other within the nozzle (Riedl, Figure 4, nozzle part 5a for the dyeing chamber 5 and [0031]), whereby the different flowable colors can be fed in strips ([0012] and [0031]).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the different flowable colors each have different material properties (Riedl, [0012], dye from the individual dye chambers does not run together which implied different dye color and different colors inherently have different material properties).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754