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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims (e.g., claims 21-23) in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In that regard claim 21, “means for positioning the card between the first and second panel”, are interpreted as the supporting members 230A-230D (e.g., four supporting members), in at least Fig. 2A and original paragraphs [0012], [0051] and [0085].
The “means for masking” (e.g., claim 22) are interpreted as “a mask”, covering the security features, in at least Fig. 5A (mask 540) and at least in original paragraphs [0008], [0014] and [0109]).
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 1-5, 7-12, 17 and 21-23 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.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the collectible card" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In addition, further clarification requires what does applicant consider “a/the collectible card” as part of the protective apparatus. The card is suitable to be held, protected, by the “protective apparatus”, but not been a part of “the protective apparatus”, as claimed.
Claims 2-5, and 7-12 are rejected based upon their dependency, directly or indirectly, to independent claim 1.
In addition, with respect to claims 5 and 7, further clarification is required regarding the already claimed “elevated edge” of claim 1, if being any different within the device of claim 5 and/or the device of claim 7.
With respect to claim 10, further clarification is required what does applicant consider “the cavity” of the first panel (line 3), as “the cavity”, is define with relation to “a second panel” (claim 1, line 10).
With respect to claim 17 further clarification is required regarding the already claimed “elevated edge” of claim 13, is being any different within the device of claim 17.
With respect to claim 21, same issues as discussed above with respect to claim 1, further clarification require regarding “a card” as part of the claimed “protective apparatus”.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected based upon their dependency to claim 21.
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 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, 7 10-11, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gingras US 5,097,953 (“Gingras”) in view of Doll US 5,205,059 (“Doll”).
As per claim 1, Gingras discloses a protective apparatus (card holder 1)(Figs. 1-9; 3:30-5:7) comprising: a first panel, the first panel including a front side and a back side, the first panel including at least a transparent portion (upper section 50 with a transparent display panel 52)(Figs. 1-3; 3:46-56 and 4:31-45); a second panel coupled to the first panel (lower section 10)(Figs. 1-3), the second panel including a front side and a back side (Figs. 2-4 and 6), the front side of the second panel including at least four supporting members, each of the at least four supporting members including a flat edge to enable positioning of a collectible card (lower section 10 defines recess 14 with four recess walls 16 for holding card 3)(Figs. 2-4; 3:57-4:6), the flat edge of a first two of the at least four supporting members being parallel to each other, the flat edge of a second two of the at least four supporting members being parallel to each other and perpendicular to the first two of the at least four supporting members (Figs. 2-4), a cavity being at least between the flat edges of the at least four supporting members (recess 14)(Fig.2 ; 3:57+), the cavity capable of holding the collectible card (card 3)(Figs. 1 and 3; 3:57+); the collectible card, the collectible card being held in the cavity (Figs. 1 and 3); an elevated edge along a perimeter of the first panel or the second panel, the second panel coupled to the first panel at the elevated edge (upper section 50 with peripheral surface 68 with side wall 72; and/or flange 42 of lower section)(Figs. 2, 3, 5 and 7; 4:31-64, regarding the upper section’s elevated edge means; and Figs. 2-4 and 6, 4:7-29, regarding the lower section’s elevated edge means).
Gingras is not specific regarding, and a mask coupled to the back side of the first panel, the mask being opaque extending around a perimeter of the back side of the first panel, and positioned inward of and adjacent to the elevated edge, the mask covering an inside of the protective apparatus between the first panel and the second panel.
However, in a similar field of protective apparatuses, Doll discloses a mask coupled to a back side of a first panel, the mask being opaque extending around a perimeter of the back side of the first panel, and positioned inward of and adjacent to elevated edge, the mask covering an inside of the protective apparatus between the first panel and a second panel (an opaque boarder 16, i.e., a mask, surrounding a view area 12 of a front face of plate 10 (i.e., a first panel) (Fig. 3; 3:37-50); the plate 10 (first panel) includes an elevated edge, such as side edges 13- to flanges 14-to-grooves 15 (Fig. 1; 3:28-36). Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’ and a mask coupled to the back side of the first panel, the mask being opaque extending around a perimeter of the back side of the first panel, and positioned inward of and adjacent to the elevated edge, the mask covering an inside of the protective apparatus between the first panel and the second panel for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Doll’s suggestions to provide such masking means to cover edges and/or indicia from a viewing area (e.g., 3:37-43). The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the combination will not frustrate the intended purpose of Gingras to cover and protect a card, that only desirable features of the collectible card/s to be visible.
As per claim 5, with respect to further comprising an elevated edge along an edge of the first panel or the second panel, the elevated edge extending between the first panel and the second panel, note Gingras’s upper section 50 with peripheral surface 68 with side wall 72; and/or flange 42 of lower section)(Figs. 2, 3, 5 and 7; 4:31-64, regarding the upper section’s elevated edge means; and Figs. 2-4 and 6, 4:7-29, regarding the lower section’s elevated edge means.
As per claims 5 and 7, with respect to the elevated edge preventing debris from entering the protective apparatus (claim 5), and wherein the elevated edge prevents water from entering between the first panel and the second panel if the protective apparatus is submerged (claim 7), as noted previously, as it has been held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Exparte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In that regard, note at least Gingras’s Figs. 1 and 8, the connection of upper section 50 with lower section 10 (via the elevated edges), construed as “preventing debris” (e.g., claim 5) and/or “preventing water”” (e.g., claim 7) to enter the protective card holder of Gingras.
As per claim 10, with respect to the mask defining a first window and a second window of the first panel, the second window being rectangular and over at least a portion of the cavity to enable viewing of the collectible card, the first window being rectangular and shorter than the second window, to the best of his understanding the examiner construed the mask of Doll (opaque boarder 16 position within panel 10 with respect to elevated edge (12/14/15; Fig. 1) around viewing area 12, (Fig. 3), while position with respect to Gingras’s upper panel 50, as such. Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’s the mask defining a first window and a second window of the first panel, the second window being rectangular and over at least a portion of the cavity to enable viewing of the collectible card, the first window being rectangular and shorter than the second window for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 11, with respect to wherein the second panel or the first panel includes a perimeter member at the perimeter of the second panel or the first panel, the perimeter member configured to engage with the elevated edge to couple the first panel and the second panel together to reduce opportunities for tampering with the collectible card, note Gingras regarding upper section 50 with peripheral surface 68 with side wall 72; and/or flange 42 of lower section)(Figs. 2, 3, 5 and 7; 4:31-64, regarding the upper section’s elevated edge means; and Figs. 2-4 and 6, 4:7-29, regarding the lower section’s elevated edge means in conjunction to Figs. 1 and 8, as the connection of upper section 50 with lower section 10.
As per claim 13, Gingras discloses a method for fabricating a protective apparatus (fabricating card holder 1)(Figs. 1-9; 3:30-5:7), the method comprising: fabricating a first panel, the first panel including a front side and a back side, the first panel including at least a transparent portion(fabricating an upper section 50 with a transparent display panel 52)(Figs. 1-3; 3:46-56 and 4:31-45); fabricating a second panel, the second panel including a front side and a back side (fabricating a lower section 10)(Figs. 1-3), the front side of the second panel including at least four supporting members(lower section 10 defines recess 14 with four recess walls 16 for holding card 3)(Figs. 2-4; 3:57-4:6), each of the at least four supporting members including a flat edge to enable positioning of a collectible object (recess 14; Fig.2 ; 3:57+ to hold card 3; Figs. 1 and 3; 3:57+) the flat edge of a first two of the at least four supporting members being parallel to each other (Figs. 2-4), the flat edge of a second two of the at least four supporting members being parallel to each other and perpendicular to the first two of the at least four supporting members (figs. 2-4), a cavity (recess 14)(Fig.2 ; 3:57+), being at least between the flat edges of the at least four supporting members, (Figs. 2-4) the cavity capable of holding the collectible object, (card 3)(Figs. 1 and 3; 3:57+) the first panel or the second panel including an elevated edge along a perimeter of the first panel or the second panel(upper section 50 with peripheral surface 68 with side wall 72; and/or flange 42 of lower section)(Figs. 2, 3, 5 and 7; 4:31-64, regarding the upper section’s elevated edge means; and Figs. 2-4 and 6, 4:7-29, regarding the lower section’s elevated edge means); and coupling the first panel and the second panel at the elevated edge (Figs. 1 and 8, the connection of upper section 50 with lower section 10, via the elevated edges).
Gingras is not specific regarding coupling a mask to the back side of the first panel, the mask being opaque, extending around a perimeter of the back side of the first panel, and positioned inward of and adjacent to the elevated edge, the mask covering an inside of the protective apparatus between the first panel and the second panel.
However, Doll discloses a mask coupled to a back side of a first panel, the mask being opaque extending around a perimeter of the back side of the first panel, and positioned inward of and adjacent to elevated edge, the mask covering an inside of the protective apparatus between the first panel and a second panel (an opaque boarder 16, i.e., a mask, surrounding a view area 12 of a front face of plate 10 (i.e., a first panel) (Fig. 3; 3:37-50); the plate 10 (first panel) includes elevated edge, such as side edges 13- to flanges 14-to-grooves 15 (Fig. 1; 3:28-36). Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’ coupling a mask to the back side of the first panel, the mask being opaque, extending around a perimeter of the back side of the first panel, and positioned inward of and adjacent to the elevated edge, the mask covering an inside of the protective apparatus between the first panel and the second panel for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 17, with respect to the first panel or the second panel further comprising an elevated edge along an edge of the first panel or the second panel, the elevated edge extending between the first panel and the second panel, note Gingras’s upper section 50 with peripheral surface 68 with side wall 72; and/or flange 42 of lower section)(Figs. 2, 3, 5 and 7; 4:31-64, regarding the upper section’s elevated edge means; and Figs. 2-4 and 6, 4:7-29, regarding the lower section’s elevated edge means.
With respect to the elevated edge preventing debris from entering the protective apparatus, note the examiner discussion above with respect to claim 5; the examiner maintains his position that within Gingras such connection between the upper and lower sections, construed as “preventing debris” from entering the protective apparatus, as set forth above.
Claim(s) 2, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gingras and Doll as applied to claims 1, 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Hager US 4,979, 619 (“Hager”).
As per claim 2, with respect to wherein the first panel and the second panel comprise polycarbonate, the protective apparatus being thereby protected from at least some impacts and UV light, note Hager’s 3:8-10 regarding using such material for front panel 11; note 3:22-25 as the same materials are to be used to form rear panel 12. Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’s wherein the first panel and the second panel comprise polycarbonate, the protective apparatus being thereby protected from at least some impacts and UV light for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Hager’s suggestions to use such materials that are suitable to form a card protective device that protect the card from the environment as well as a transparent and a light enough materials (note Gingras’ 3:45+ as the use of materials to provide such properties to his card holder).
As per claim 12, with respect to the elevated edge being ultrasonic welded to the perimeter member, Hager discloses the edge being ultrasonic welded to the perimeter member, lip 21 at edges 14-15 of rear panel 11 to about against region 32 of panel 12, to be ultrasonic sealing thereto (Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 6; 3:46-4:2). Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’s edges being ultrasonic welded to the perimeter member for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing a known technique to firmly and safely connect the front panel to the second panel to provide a seal cover for a collectible card. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the combination will not frustrate the intended purpose of Gingras to firmly and safely connect the upper section with the lower section to provide a card holder suitable to contain and protect a card. Within the modified Gingras by at least the teachings of Hager the ultrasonic welding would have within the elevated edge/s (as taught by Gingras).
As per claim 14, Gingras is not specific regarding wherein the first panel and the second panel are made of polycarbonate, the protective apparatus being thereby protected from at least some impacts and UV light. Note Hager’s 3:8-10 regarding using such material for front panel 11; note 3:22-25 as the same materials are to be used to form rear panel 12. Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’s wherein the first panel and the second panel are made of polycarbonate, the protective apparatus being thereby protected from at least some impacts and UV light for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gingras and Doll as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of CN2867501Y Smith (“Smith”).
As per claim 3, Gingras is not specific regarding further comprising a bumper made of a resilient material that surrounds edges of the first panel and the second panel. However, in a similar field of protective apparatuses, Smith discloses a bumper made of a resilient material that surrounds edges of a first panel and a second panel (Figs. 1-2 and 4; page 2, 1st and 2-3rd paragraphs, protective rubber cushion 21 of tag 1- element 3; i.e., first and second panels). Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’s bumper made of a resilient material that surrounds edges of the first panel and the second panel for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known manner to provide an additional protective means as a bumper, to protect the card holder as well as to avoid injuries to a user manipulating the card holder/protector.
As per claim 15, Gingras is not specific regarding further comprising coupling a bumper made of a resilient material around edges of the first panel and the second panel. However, Smith discloses a bumper made of a resilient material that surrounds edges of a first panel and a second panel (Figs. 1-2 and 4; page 2, 1st and 2-3rd paragraphs, protective rubber cushion 21 of tag 1- element 3; i.e., first and second panels). Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’s further comprising coupling a bumper made of a resilient material around edges of the first panel and the second panel for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gingras and Doll as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Haugen et al US 8,256,669 (“Haugen”).
As per claim 4, Gingras is not specific regarding further comprising a security feature between the first panel and the second panel, the security feature including at least one of a near field communication (NFC) chip and a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip, the security feature being beneath the mask such that the security feature is not visible from the front side of the first panel.
However, in a similar field of protective apparatuses, Haugen discloses further comprising a security feature between a first panel and a second panel, the security feature including at least one of a near field communication (NFC) chip and a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip (security means, account identifier 20, between base 30 and cover 32 (between first and second panels)(Fig. 3, in conjunction to Figs. 1 and 2 (regarding the panels) and at least 3:15-41). Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’s further comprising a security feature between the first panel and the second panel, the security feature including at least one of a near field communication (NFC) chip and a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Haugen’s suggestions to include such identifier means within the protective apparatus for additional data and provide additional security to the user (3:31-41). With respect to “the security feature being beneath the mask such that the security feature is not visible from the front side of the first panel”, within the modified Gingras by the teachings of Doll, the security features would have been beneath the mask (as taught by Doll, e.g., Fig. 3).
Furthermore, as previously stated (office action mailed 12/29/2025, pages 18-19) “In addition, applicant in at least [0070] stats “ In some embodiments, there may be a logo, NFC chip, and/or RFID chip anywhere between or on the top or bottom portions.” . Also, consider the court’s ruling as it has been held that claims which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the elements were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the elements would not have modified the operation of the device; see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950);In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). The examiner maintains his position that the location of the security features beneath the mask would have been obvious, as previously set forth.
As per claim 16, Gingras is not specific regarding further comprising adding a security feature between the first panel and the second panel before the first panel is coupled to the second panel, the security feature including at least one of a near field communication (NFC) chip and a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip, the security feature being beneath the mask such that the security feature is not visible from the front side of the first panel. However, Haugen discloses further comprising a security feature between a first panel and a second panel, the security feature including at least one of a near field communication (NFC) chip and a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip (security means, account identifier 20, between base 30 and cover 32 (between first and second panels)(Fig. 3, in conjunction to Figs. 1 and 2 (regarding the panels) and at least 3:15-41). Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’s further comprising a security feature between the first panel and the second panel, the security feature including at least one of a near field communication (NFC) chip and a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 4. The examiner further maintains his position regarding the location of the security feature beneath the mask as set forth above with respect to claim 4.
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gingras and Doll as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Grosso US 5,074,593 (“Grosso”).
As per claim 8, Gingras is not specific regarding further comprising a protective layer adhered to the front side of the first panel, the protective layer being transparent and configured to prevent damage to the front side of the first panel.
However, in a similar field of protective apparatuses, Grosso discloses further comprising a protective layer adhered to a front side of a first panel, the protective layer being transparent and configured to prevent damage to the front side of the first panel (protective sheet 41 adhere to adhesive frame 48 on a first panel)(Fig. 8; 5:21-57). Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’s further comprising a protective layer adhered to the front side of the first panel, the protective layer being transparent and configured to prevent damage to the front side of the first panel for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using a known manner to include an additional protective layer for further protecting of the first/front panel from any damage yet allowing the enclosed collectible card to be seen via the transparent protective adhered layer.
As per claim 20, Gingras does not disclose further comprising coupling a protective layer to the front side of the first panel, the protective layer being transparent and configured to prevent damage to the front side of the first panel.
However, Grosso discloses coupling a protective layer to a front side of a first panel, the protective layer being transparent and configured to prevent damage to the front side of the first panel (coupling a protective sheet 41 to an adhesive frame 48 on a first panel)(Fig. 8; 5:21-57). Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’s coupling a protective layer to the front side of the first panel, the protective layer being transparent and configured to prevent damage to the front side of the first panel as taught by Grosso for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gingras, Doll and Hager as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sippel US 6,367,799 (“Sippel”).
As per claim 9, Gingras, by at least the teachings of Hager, is not specific regarding further comprising an identifier that is hot stamped on the polycarbonate.
However, in a similar field of protective apparatuses, Sippel discloses further comprising an identifier that is stamped on the cover (logo 68 imprinted upon cover/case 16)(Fig. 3; 4:65+). The imprinted logo of Sippel construed as the claimed “stamped means”, according to at least applicant’s original paragraphs [0007] and [0094]. Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’s (modified by at least the teachings of Hager, regarding the use of “polycarbonate”) further comprising an identifier that is stamped on the polycarbonate for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Sippel’s suggestions to include an identifier that is stamped on the protector in the form of a logo. With respect to the identifier as “hot stamped thereon”, as mentioned previously (OA mailed 12-29-2025, page 22), product by process apparatus does not accord much patentability, and the examiner maintains his position that the prior art final product, would have been the same, to include an identifier (e.g., “logo”) that is “stamped on the polycarbonate”.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gingras in view of Haugen.
As per claim 21, Gingras discloses a card protective apparatus (card holder 1)(Figs. 1-9; 3:30-5:7) comprising:
a first panel, the first panel including a front side and a back side, the first panel including a first transparent portion (an upper section 50 with a transparent display panel 52)(Figs. 1-3; 3:46-56 and 4:31-45); a second panel coupled to the first panel, the second panel including a front side and a back side, the second panel including a second transparent portion (a lower section 10 with a display panel 20)(Figs. 1-3; 3:45-4:2); a card (card 3)(Figs. 1 and 3; 3:46-48); means for positioning the card between the first panel and the second panel (construed as a lower section 10 defines recess 14 with four recess walls 16 for holding card 3)(Figs. 2-4; 3:57-4:6).
Gingras is not specific regarding and a security feature between the first panel and the second panel, the security feature including a near field communication (NFC) chip, the security feature being not visible from an exterior of the card protective apparatus.
However, Haugen discloses a security feature between the first panel and the second panel, the security feature including a near field communication (NFC) chip, the security feature being not visible from an exterior of the card protective apparatus (security means, an account identifier 20, between a base 30 and a cover 32 (i.e., between a first and a second panels)(Fig. 3, in conjunction to Figs. 1 and 2 (regarding the panels) and at least 3:15-41). Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’s and a security feature between the first panel and the second panel, the security feature including a near field communication (NFC) chip, the security feature being not visible from an exterior of the card protective apparatus for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 4.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gingras and Haugen as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Doll.
As per claim 22, Gingras is not specific regarding further comprising means for masking a portion of the first transparent portion, wherein the security feature is hidden by the means for masking.
However, Doll discloses an opaque boarder 16, (a mask, i.e., means for masking), surrounding a view area 12 of a front face of plate 10 (i.e., a first panel) (Fig. 3; 3:37-50). Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’s further comprising means for masking a portion of the first transparent portion, wherein the security feature is hidden by the means for masking for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. The examiner further maintains his position regarding the location of the security feature beneath the mask (means for masking) as set forth above with respect to claim 4.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gingras and Haugen as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Grosso.
As per claim 23, Gingras is not specific regarding further comprising scratch-resistant glass attached to the first panel.
However, Grosso discloses further comprising a scratch-resistant glass attached to a first panel (protective sheet 41 adhere to adhesive frame 48 on a first panel)(Fig. 8; 5:21-57; the examiner takes the position that the plastic mask/sheet 41 with sufficient thickness, is such that provides “scratch-resistant glass”). Therefore, 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 to form Gingras’s further comprising scratch-resistant glass attached to the first panel for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-17, and 20-23 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 8/31/2026
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights