DETAILED 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 4-7 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 4 recites “a fourth printing pass”, which infers a third printing pass, however, claim 1 from which it depends only claims a first printing pass and a second printing pass. Thus, it is unclear whether a third printing pass is intended by the claims. The claim would not be unclear if dependent on claims 2 or 3, which introduce the third printing pass, or, if the claim was amended to also recite a “third printing pass”. Claims 5-7 depend from claim 4.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer et al. (US 4,544,181) in view of Maurer et al. (US 4,735,670) and Murray et al. (GB 2,419,110).
In respect to claims 1 and 8, Maurer et al. ‘181 disclose a method of manufacturing an item* comprising: applying, via a printing pass, a “target” signature strip 16 (via lamination, a type of printing) on a front sheet of the item which indicates a location for application of a signature (Fig. 1); receiving the front sheet with the signature (applied by a user with a “normal writing instrument”) in the location indicated by the target; and adhering the front sheet 10 to a back sheet 12 (Fig. 2). *A “collectible item” does not infer any particular structure. Regardless, even ID card, as disclosed by Maurer et al., if belonging to a famous person, is a “collective item”.
Maurer et al. ‘181 do not disclose applying, via a second printing pass, one or more images/text on the front sheet in at least one location, the at least one location excluding the location indicated by the target, however, Maurer et al. ‘670 teach a very similar invention with a similar target 4 and signature 5 (Fig. 1); after application of the first printing pass (lamination of the “target” signature strip 4), applying, via a second printing pass, “images” security pattern, 6; the images 6 covering all of the card, including locations outside of the “target” 4 (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to provide the item taught in Maurer et al. ‘181 with a second printing pass (subsequent to the first printing pass) in view of Maurer et al. ‘670 to resist manipulation of underling features (e.g. the signature) (Col. 3, 52 – Col. 4, 9)
Maurer et al. ‘181 and ‘670 substantially teach the claimed invention but do not teach subsequent to adhering the front and back sheets, reducing a size of the sheets, however, Murray et al. teach a similar item (ID cards) which may be produced in a large sheet and cut after printing (and assembly) (Pg. 84, Para 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to cut “reduce the size” of the items taught in Murray et al. ‘181 and ‘670 in view of Murray et al. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely, providing several printed items and cutting into individual items for cost-savings and efficiency.
In respect to claims 2-3, Maurer et al. ‘181 and ‘670 substantially teach the claimed invention but do not teach applying, via a third printing pass, one of more embellishments via hot foil stamping, however, Murray et al. teach a similar item (ID card) (see above) which further includes providing hot foil stamping (third printing pass). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to provide the item taught in Maurer et al. ‘181 and ‘670 with a third printing pass of a hot foil stamping in view of Murray et al. to provide a decorative coating (Pg. 56, Para 2).
In respect to claims 4-7, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) above, however, Maurer et al. ‘181 and ‘670 substantially teach the claimed invention but do not teach applying, a “fourth” printing pass of a UV curable clear (intrinsically writable) coating however Murray et al. teach providing a UV curable clear (intrinsically writable) coating (Pg. 41, Para 3 – Pg. 42, Para 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to provide the item taught in Maurer et al. ‘181 and ‘670 with a UV curable clear (intrinsically writable) coating in view of Murray to encapsulate previously materials (protection) (Pg. 41, Para 3 – Pg. 42, Para 3).
In respect to claims 9-10, Maurer et al. ‘181 further disclose that the front and back sheet may be of equivalent thickness (Fig. 2), and further discloses that the cover sheets (which includes back sheet 12) may range in thickness go up to 0.5 mm (Col. 6, 57-60).
In respect to claim 11, Maurer et al. ‘181 further disclose that the front sheet “core” 14 may comprise paper (Col. 5, 60-64).
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Autograph Card Store (ACS) (2022) (NPL) in view of How to Print Over Signed Blanks (HPOSB) (YouTube.com) (2019).
In respect to claim 1, ACS discloses a manufacturing of a collectible item comprising: applying, via a printing pass, a “target” (area between border and text) on a front sheet of the item which indicates a location for application of a signature (Figure, below); receiving the front sheet with the signature (applied by a user with a “normal writing instrument”) in the location indicated by the target (see intent and other examples on NPL).
PNG
media_image1.png
222
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ACS does not disclose applying, via a second printing pass, one or more images/text on the front sheet in at least one location, the at least one location excluding the location indicated by the target, however, HPOSB teaches providing a similar signed template and providing a second printing over the signed target, including printing in areas outside of the area of the signature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to provide a signed target template as taught in ACS with an overprint “second pass” in view of HPOSB to provide images associated with the signature (as the signer of the signature may not be known previously).
Neither ACS or HPOSB teach that the collectible item is formed with the front sheet adhered to a back sheet, however, this is extensively known in the paper arts, particularly the printed collectible art. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely, providing a back sheet for rigidity or for providing separate printing.
In respect to claim 13, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily ascertain that the first printing pass disclosed by ACS was done with digital printing. Regardless, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely, selection of any number of known digital printing methods known in the art, which allow for quick and easy changes to the printed subject matter. Furthermore, HPOSB explicitly teach digital printing on the second printing pass.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Autograph Card Store (ACS) (2022) (NPL) in view of How to Print Over Signed Blanks (HPOSB) (YouTube.com) (2019) as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Eggleston (CA 3,028,897).
ACS and HPOSB substantially disclose the claimed invention but do not disclose providing a “relic” to the collectible item making it a “relic card”, however, Eggleston teach a similar signed collectible item, and further applying a “relic” e.g. a textile to the card (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to provide the collective item taught in ACS and HPOSB with a relic in view of Eggleston to provide a memento (Abstract).
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlauch (S 6,082,774) in view of Murray (GB 2,419,110).
In respect to claims 14 and 16, Schlauch discloses a collectible item comprising: a front sheet comprising a signature 130 on a top surface of the front sheet and further images 193 and text 152 on the front surface (Fig. 1A); a back sheet “authentication statement”, which may constitute a separate layer e.g. paper (Col. 23, 47-60; Fig. 1B).
Schlauch does not disclose a UV coating applied over the top surface of the card covering all the signature, images, and text, however, Murray discloses this UV coating as detailed in the action above and its provision would be obvious for the same reason as detailed above.
In respect to claims 15 and 17, Schlauch further discloses that the back sheet may comprise paper but not particular paper such as “cardstock” or “photopaper”, however, these are extremely well known types of paper and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at effective filing date of the present invention to select “cardstock” or “photopaper” as a suitable “paper”, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In respect to claims 18 and 19, Schlauch further discloses a “target” (e.g. a location bound by the peripheral lines) indicating a location of the signature, with the signature overlaying this “target”.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlauch (S 6,082,774) in view of Murray (GB 2,419,110) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Waldo et al. (US 2006/0054706).
Schlauch in view of Murray substantially teach the claimed invention but do not teach a spacer layer containing a relic, however, Waldo et al. teach a similar collectible item with a front sheet 216 and a back sheet 218 and further a spacer layer 220 containing an insert “relic” 222 (Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to provide the collectible item taught in Schlauch and Murray with a spacer layer and relic in view of Waldo et al. to provide a relic while protecting the relic from damage (0026).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Daniel Troy, can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637