DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 06/23/2026, claims 1-17 are pending. Claim 17 is newly added. Claims 1, 6-7, and 11 are currently amended. Claims 14-16 are withdrawn based on the restriction requirement. Claims 1-13 and 17 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 .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Previous 35 USC 103 rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment. However, new rejections have been established.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2016/0039187 (“Crawford-Tayler et al” hereinafter Crawford-Tayler) and US2011/0164748 (“Kohlert et al” hereinafter Kohlert).
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 contain 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).
Crawford-Tayler further teaches various images, text, numbers, symbols, or the like, can be printed onto the blocking layer 110 with different colors ([0032]), fails to explicitly teach producing a unique optical security feature having a randomized multi- coloring visible in plan view of the film, the security feature being permanently integrated into the film.
However, in the analogous art of using extrusion to produce a film with embedded pigment particles ([0027]), Kloeckner teaches producing a unique optical security feature having a randomized multi-coloring visible in plan view of the film, the security feature being permanently integrated into the film ([0025], the packaging film according to the invention comprises pigment particles and the pigment particles are present in a random distribution in the surface area of the packaging film and the luminescent light emitted by the excited pigment particles can be varied by means of corresponding substance mixture [0026]. Thus, forming a security marker suitable for commercial application at a high copy protection [0024].).
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-Tayer such that it includes all of the above limitations taught by Kloeckner to produce a security marker that can be detected with moderate metrological outlay and at the same time affords a high copy protection ([0024]).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified 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, Kloeckner teaches wherein the film material having a transparent or opaque base color is formed ([0030], the packaging film can have any desired color; it is preferably white or transparent).
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 the modified Crawford-Tayler such that it discusses all of the above-mentioned limitations as taught by Kocher because utilizing one known film material in place of another film 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 6, the modified Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flowable color is thermostable (Crawford-Tayler, [0030], core layer might be form of copolymerized PET material which is thermostable).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flowable color is formed by an offset color (Crawford-Tayler, [0032], core layer may be black, orange, green, or the like which are example of offset color).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified 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 (Crawford-Tayler, 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, the modified Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the nozzle has at least one chamber for the flowable color (Crawford-Tayler, 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]).
Regarding Claim 17, the modified Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the randomized multi-coloring of the unique optical security feature includes randomly distributed colored surface areas having random sizes (Kohlert, [0025], pigment particles are present in random distribution in the surface area of the packaging film) and random edge contours (as a result of the random distribution of the pigment particles, the edge contours formed by these pigment particles will also be random).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2016/0039187 (“Crawford-Tayler et al” hereinafter Crawford-Tayler) and US2011/0164748 (“Kohlert et al” hereinafter Kohlert) as applied to claims 1 or 8 above, and further in view of EP2511094 (Kocher), machine translation provided in previous Office Action.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified 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 features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by the modified 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 9, the modified 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 the modified 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), US2011/0164748 (“Kohlert et al” hereinafter Kohlert), and EP2511094 (Kocher), machine translation provided in previous Office Action, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of WO2016/038868 (“Ono et al” hereinafter Ono), machine translation provided in previous Office Action.
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 modify the method as taught by the modified 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) and US2011/0164748 (“Kohlert et al” hereinafter Kohlert) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of DE102019005164 (Riedl), machine translation provided in previous Office Action.
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Crawford-Tayler teaches the method as claimed in claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the nozzle has multiple chambers and a different flowable color is provided for each chamber.
However, Riedl teaches wherein the nozzle has multiple chambers and 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 the modified 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights