DETAILED 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 13 March 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Claims 1-17 have been canceled as requested by the Applicant.
Claims 18-31 have been added and examined as such.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 9 and Line 10 appear to contain typographical errors.
Line 9 is understood to read:
a card output located downstream of the at least one
Line 10 is understood to read:
wherein a
Appropriate correction is required.
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 25 & 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. (US 2004/0114981 A1) in view of Jackson et al. (US 2002/0140165 A1).
As related to independent claim 25, Meier et al. teaches a card processing system, comprising: a card feed mechanism (Meier et al. Page 2, Paragraph 28 and Figure 3, Reference #102, #164, #166, & #110, shown below), a primary card travel path (Meier et al. – Figure 3, shown below) each card having a first surface and a second surface (Meier et al. Page 2, Paragraph 28-32; Page 4, Paragraphs 51 & 53; and Figure 3, Reference #102, #164, #166, #110, #100, #252, & #260, shown below), at least one print station along the primary card travel path that performs printing operations for the cards (Meier et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 32 and Figure 3, Reference #100, shown below), and a card output [i.e. end] (Meier et al. – Page 4, Paragraph 54 and Figure 3, Reference #252 & #260, shown below), located downstream of the at least one print station (Meier et al. – Figure 3, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Continuing with claim 25, Meier et al. does not specifically teach the orientation of the first and second card as claimed or a card return path. However, Jackson et al. teaches a processing system with a printing mechanism and a recirculating system (Jackson et al. – Page 6, Paragraph 59 and Figure 8, Reference #704, shown below) and specifically teaches the card printing mechanism is configured so that the primary card travel path is configured to have cards in an alternating sequence from the card feed mechanism and a card return path (Jackson et al. – Page 6, Paragraph 60-61 and Figure 9, Reference #801A, #990, #801B, #801C, & #811, shown below), wherein a first card is arranged to have the first surface of the first card facing up and a second card is arranged to have the second surface of the second card facing up (Jackson et al. – Page 6, Paragraph 60-61 and Figure 9, Reference #801A, #801B, #801C, & #811, shown below) and a card return path configured to return the second card to the primary card travel path without the second card entering the card output (Jackson et al. – Page 6, Paragraph 60-62 and Figure 9, Reference #524, #801B, #801C, & #992, shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
468
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to recognize the optional mechanisms of card processing and location and orientation thereof to include the use of the card printing other card processing mechanisms as taught by Meier et al. and modify them with the mechanisms of Jackson et al. in order to provide an accurate simplified method of duplex handling (Jackson et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 13).
As related to dependent claim 29, the combination of Meier et al. and Jackson et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the return card path comprises a mechanism [i.e. card flipper] configured to flip a card (Meier et al. – Page 4, Paragraph 53).
As related to dependent claim 30, the combination of Meier et al. and Jackson et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a smart card programming mechanism on the card processing path downstream of the card feed mechanism (Meier et al. Page 2, Paragraph 28-32; Page 4, Paragraphs 51 & 53; and Figure 3, Reference #102, #164, #166, #110, #100, #252, & #260, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 31, the combination of Meier et al. and Jackson et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a magnetic stripe programming mechanism on the card processing path downstream of the card feed mechanism (Meier et al. – Page 4, Paragraphs 51-53).
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. (US 2004/0114981 A1) in view of Jackson et al. (US 2002/0140165 A1) and further in view of Kubert et al. (US 2003/0151248 A1).
As related to dependent claim 26, the combination of Meier et al. and Jackson et al. does not specifically teach a drop-on-demand printer. However, Kubert et al. teaches a card processing system with multiple processing mechanisms including a printing mechanism specifically using a drop-on-demand printer [i.e. inkjet printer] (Kubert et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 3, Page 2, Paragraphs 13 & 22 and Figure 1, Reference #16 & #28, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to recognize the printing mechanisms of card processing systems as taught by the combination of Meier et al. and Jackson et al. and specify the type of ink and printing system to be used as taught by Kubert et al. in order to provide a card processing system with printing using well known printing systems while reducing production loss and card cost (Kubert et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 3 & 5 and Page 2, Paragraph 22).
PNG
media_image3.png
467
762
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As related to further dependent claim 27, the combination of Meier et al., Jackson et al., and Kubert et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the at least one drop-on-demand print station is configured to print with radiation curable ink, and further comprising a radiation curing station on the primary card travel path located downstream of the at least drop-on-demand one print station and upstream of the card output. (Kubert et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 7 & 9 and Pages 2-3, Paragraph 25 and Figure 1, Reference #16 & #28, shown above).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Meier et al. (US 2004/0114981 A1), Jackson et al. (US 2002/0140165 A1), and Kubert et al. (US 2003/0151248 A1), in further in view of Klinefelter et al. (US 2006/0070545 A1).
The combination of Meier et al., Jackson et al., and Kubert et al., remains as applied above and continues to teach a surface treatment upstream of a drop-on-demand print station (Kubert et al. – Page 3, Paragraph 27 and Figure 1, Reference #30, shown above) but does not specifically teach a surface treatment station upstream of the drop-on-demand print station, the surface treatment station is configured to treat the first surface or the second surface of each card. However, Klinefelter et al. teaches a card personalization system (Klinefelter et al. – Figure 7, shown below) and specifically teaches a surface treatment station upstream of the drop-on-demand print station, the surface treatment station is configured to treat [i.e. coating the surface] the first surface or the second surface of each card (Klinefelter et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 4-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the card personalization system of the combination of M Meier et al., Jackson et al., and Kubert et al., with the surface treatment station of Klinefelter et al. in an effort to ensure the ink from ink jet printers adheres to the surface of the card to be printed thereon (Klinefelter et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
361
639
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed as presented.
Claims 19-24 are allowed as presented, dependent on claim 18.
The following is an Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Allowance:
As related to independent claim 18 Applicant amended the independent claim to incorporate additional structural limitations differentiating it from the parent claim(s). A review of the amendment was conducted and an updated search was performed based on the amendment to the claim and the existing prior art of record as well as additional cited art fails to teach or fairly suggest: a return mechanism configured to return a card that has been fed through the at least one print station for printing on the first surface of the card back to a location upstream of the at least one print station without the card entering the card output, wherein the card is fed again through the at least one print station.
Prior Art Jackson et al. teaches a return travel path configured to return print medium to a location upstream of the drop-on-demand print station, but does not teach the limitation of a return mechanism to return a card that has been fed through the at least one print station for printing on the first surface of the card back to a location upstream of the at least one print station without the card entering the card output, wherein the card is fed again through the at least one print station.
As the record as a whole has made additional reasons for allowance evident, no further statement on reasons for allowance is made.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Skoglund et al. (US 2022/0080724 A1) teaches a card processing system with an inkjet card printer and a flipper.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 EST.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights