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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vittimberga et al. (US Patent No. 10,513,081) in view of Gardner et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2015/0332607).
Regarding claim 1, Vittimberga teaches a method for producing a plastic design element on an authentication data carrier comprising the following steps (“The present invention relates to a method of making a transaction instrument such as for use in a financial transaction “(Vittimberga: col.1, line 14-16). “Transaction instruments may be in the form of cards such as a credit card, debit card” (Vittimberga: col.3, line 16-18)):
Providing an individual starting image (“Colored areas may include logos or other images” (Vittimberga: col.8, line 15-16). “The transaction card may have a graphics layer on one or both sides” (col.3, line 27-30)),
Applying the starting image as a planar printed pattern in a first printing process (“Other stations may include, but are not limited to…graphics printing…” (Vittimberga: col.9, line 36-41). “The personalization process may comprise at least one of dye sublimation printing, screen printing, gravure printing, lithography, inkjet printing, laser printing, indentation, additive manufacturing, or a combination thereof” (Vittimberga: col.3, line 31-35)),
Applying a three-dimensional printed pattern in accordance with the 3D printing template to the planar printed pattern in a second printing process (“As an additional 3D printing or additive manufacturing step, in either of the two examples below, the completed card would subsequently be personalized …For a card made by 3D printing or additive manufacturing, the card or set of cards on a sheet made through additive manufacturing would be reloaded to an additive manufacturing machine for personalization” (Vittimberga: col.8, line 28-35)).
The 3D printer of Vittimberga relies on pre-designed 3D CAD blueprints rather than deriving 3D control data from 2D images automatically. However, Gardner teaches providing an individual starting image (obtaining an image file in a digital format (Garnder: claim1). “an optical reader 10 has capability for reading a document as an image” (Gardner: 0012)),
Generating printing data, which reproduce the starting image as a planar printed pattern (“The optical reader 10 is coupled to a converter 12 that converts the image to a bitmap format. The scanned image is sent to an image processor 14” (Gardner: 0012, claim 1))
Carrying out an edge detection to determine dominating edges in the printing data, which delimit the surface areas contained in the printing data from one another and reproduce the contours of the motif contained in the starting image (“The edge control is an edge contrast adjustment that determines which edges will be included in the embossed tactile document” (Gardner: 0012). “setting a difference threshold of intensity between adjoining pixels forming an edge and eliminating pixels whose difference intensities fall below a selected level” (Gardner: claim 6)),
Creating a 3D printing template, which is based on the dominating edges found, applying a three-dimensional printed pattern in accordance with the 3D printing template to the planar printed pattern in a second printing process (Garner teaches taking detected contour edges, expanding the line dimensions, and translating the resulting data into a 3D tactile printing template (control data) to produce raised patterns (Gardner: claim 1, 0020, 0012)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Vittimberga such as to utilize the edge detection and 3D printing process of Gardner, because this enables an automated process that improves the efficiency of the personal card creation process of Vittimberga.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, to generate the printing data, the individual starting image provided by the user is combined with design specifications and boundary conditions for the type of authentication data carrier to be processed (“the transaction card is compliant with at least a portion of ISO 7810, ISO 7811, ISO 7816, or a combination thereof” (Vittimberga: col.3, line 60-62)).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the printing data are divided into first area data, which are embodied in the form of a typical two-dimensional print on an authentication data carrier, and second area data, in which a three-dimensional print job takes place (“The present invention encompasses various ways in which to differentiate personalization from background including, but are not limited to, recessed, raised and a different shade or color. With recessed, the personalization would be at a lower elevation than the surface of the card. With raised, the personalization would be at a higher elevation than the surface of the card” (Vittimberga: col.8, line 40-53). Therefore, Vittimberga teaches differentiating the 3D additive zones from 2D background zones).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Gardner teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the 3D print is executed using a defined height (“There is a minimum line thickness that is appropriate for tactile images and thus adjusted edges must be increased in thickness to at least reach this minimum. The line thickness may be a predetermined width, for example, one tactile pixel wide which is 0.05 inches.” (Gardner: 0014)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings above such as to apply the thickness threshold teaching of Gardner, because this ensures an effective 3D effect.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the contours formed by dominating edges form plastic design elements, which are produced in the second printing process as a three-dimensional print job (“The edge control is an edge contrast adjustment that determines which edges will be included in the embossed tactile document. The output of the image processor 14 can be coupled to an embossing printer 20, which will render the adjusted image as a tactile image that can be “read” by touch” (Gardner: 0012)).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach the method as claimed inclaim1, wherein surface areas delimited by the dominating edges are embodied in the second printing process as a three-dimensional print job (“rendering hue and color information within the tactile document as predefined tactically perceptible patterns within select bounded areas defined by said lines” (Gardner: claim 2)).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the dominating edges are applied with a different thickness than the delimited surface areas (Gardner teaches differentiating the line thickness assigned to bounding edge lines (Gardner: 0020, 0021)).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the thickness with which the delimited surface areas are applied depends on further information ascertained from the printing data, in particular the color and/or the position (“the embossing printer will generate big dots for dark colors, small dots for light colors and no dots for white” (Gardner: 0022).
Claim(s) 10 is/are corresponding device claim(s) of claim(s) 1. The limitations of claim(s) 10 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 1. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected substantially similar to claim(s) 10. Note the combined teachings teaches a device as presently claimed (the station of Vittimberga shown in FIG.29).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vittimberga et al. (US Patent No. 10,513,081) in view of Gardner as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Torian (PGPUB Document No. US 2010/0100238).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Torian teaches the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the edge detection is only executed in the second area data (Torian teaches non-modifiable areas on gift cards (Torian: 0046-0047), wherein applying the teaching of Torian to the combined teachings above enables restricting certain areas from being modified such as preventing 3D additive printing in said area)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings above such as to selectively modify areas on the card as taught by Torian, because this ensures important information to stay unmodified.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H Chu whose telephone number is (571)272-8079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 1:30pm, 3:30-8:30pm.
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, Daniel F Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/DAVID H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights