DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 16-26 in the reply filed on 3/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 27-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/5/2026.
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 16-26 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 16 recites the limitation “and also color surface regions in which a different layer of the cardlike body and therefore its color dominates”. It is not clear as to the structure claimed since the term “its” can include the claimed different layer, at least one second layer, and the first layer. There is no distinction between a first layer, any other second layer, or a different layer and as such, unclear as to which other layer would have a dominating color. Claims 17-26 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 16.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the layers arranged one atop another are free from blowing agent-induced pores or inclusions”. It is not clear if “the layers” are the as claimed are the same as “a plurality of layers” recited in claim 16. Examiner assumes they are the same but clarification is requested.
Claims 20-23 and 25 each recite “one polymer” and “the other polymer”. It is not clear as to the relationship between the recited base polymer and carrier polymer in claim 16 and the “one polymer” and “the other polymer” or if these are different polymers than the base polymer and carrier polymer. Clarification is requested.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Anderson et al. (US 20180071969) discloses a dual color blow molding process to form sporting goods but is silent to the claimed secure document having the structure as claimed. Kulikovska et al. (EP 2681054) discloses a substrate that is printed with multiple color compositions on said substrate to form a security element. However, Kulikovska is silent to the disclosed structure. Leopold et al. (WO 2009/056355) discloses a multilayer laminate with printed areas on multiple layers to form a security element. However, Leopold is silent to the structure being a randomized polychromatic structure as claimed. Tam et al. (WO 03/054529) discloses a security document comprising different polymer compositions each comprising a color effect pigment but is silent to the structure as claimed. Holmes (WO 2014/184560) discloses multiple curable compositions that have different colors. However, Holmes is silent to the claimed structure. The prior art is silent to a secure document having the claimed structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kulikovska et al. (EP 2681054) discloses a substrate that is printed with multiple color compositions on said substrate to form a security element. However, Kulikovska is silent to the disclosed structure. Leopold et al. (WO 2009/056355) discloses a multilayer laminate with printed areas on multiple layers to form a security element. However, Leopold is silent to the structure being a randomized polychromatic structure as claimed. Tam et al. (WO 03/054529) discloses a security document comprising different polymer compositions each comprising a color effect pigment but is silent to the structure as claimed. Holmes (WO 2014/184560) discloses multiple curable compositions that have different colors. However, Holmes is silent to the claimed structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights