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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application 62/001,706; 62/074,305; 14/718,596; 17/137,515.
Response to Amendment
Amendment received on 12/26/2025. Claim 9-29 has been properly cancelled, claims 1-8, 30-48 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-8, 30, 31, 34, 38-39, 41-42, 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajorek 6,482,330 in view of Varga et al. 2009/0294543.
Regarding claim 1, Bajorek discloses a transaction card (card 10) comprising a monolithic ceramic card body (sheet 20) and one or more pockets (indentation 12) in the monolithic card body [FIG 1a][ col 1, l. 65-67].However, Bajorek does not explicitly disclose one or more pigments in the monolithic ceramic card body sufficient to impart a color to the transaction card.
Varga discloses one or more pigments in the monolithic ceramic card body sufficient to impart a color to the transaction card [0047]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Varga is analogous art that discloses, “Moreover, a need exists for a transaction card that withstands exposure to the elements, such as moisture or sunlight. A need further exists for a transaction card that may incorporate the features noted above, such as holograms, signature panels, magnetic stripes, microchips, and the like, such that is has both strength and durability” [12].
Regarding claim 2, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bajorek further discloses the one or more pockets are configured to receive at least one of: a magnetic stripe (magnetic strip 26) a contact or dual interface chip module, a booster antenna, a hologram, a signature panel, or branding [FIG 1A].
Regarding claim 3, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bajorek further discloses the ceramic monolithic card body comprises one or more compounds of the group consisting of: silicides, nitrides, carbides, borides, oxides, including oxides of zirconia [col 4, l. 40], alumina, beryllia, cerium, and a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bajorek further discloses the ceramic monolithic card body comprises sintered zirconia dioxide [col 4, l. 40].
Regarding claim 5, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Varga discloses at least one feature selected from the group consisting of: through holes, windows [signature panel 24] [FIG 1B, FIG 8, FIG 10], microtext, and a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 6, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bajorek further discloses at least one laser-marked feature disposed on the body [col 3, l. 30-38].
Regarding claim 7, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Bajorek further discloses at least one laser marked feature comprises a decorative design feature (ridges 24) [col 3, l. 30-38].
Regarding claim 8, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Bajorek further discloses at least one laser marked feature comprises a security feature, a laser-applied digitized signature, at least one roughened surface, or a combination thereof [col 3, l. 30-36].
Regarding claim 30, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Bajorek fails to explicitly disclose the ceramic card body further comprises at least one roughened surface portion, wherein the roughened surface portion (a) comprises at least one feature adhesively connected thereto, or (b) is more receptive to ink or dye than a non-roughened surface portion of the card body and is configured to receive a user's signature.
Varga discloses the ceramic card body further comprises at least one roughened surface portion, wherein the roughened surface portion (a) comprises at least one feature adhesively connected thereto, or (b) is more receptive to ink or dye than a non-roughened surface portion of the card body and is configured to receive a user's signature [44-45] [53] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Varga is analogous art that discloses, “Moreover, a need exists for a transaction card that withstands exposure to the elements, such as moisture or sunlight. A need further exists for a transaction card that may incorporate the features noted above, such as holograms, signature panels, magnetic stripes, microchips, and the like, such that is has both strength and durability” [12].
Regarding claim 31, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 30. Varga further discloses a magnetic stripe disposed on a non-roughened surface of the monolithic card body [FIG 1B].
Regarding claim 34, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Bajorek fails to explicitly disclose the monolithic ceramic card body has a dimension of 3.37 inches x 2.125 inches x 0.03 inches. Varga discloses the monolithic ceramic card body has a dimension of 3.37 inches x 2.125 inches x 0.03 inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Varga is analogous art and those are the ISO standards for a card dimensions.
Regarding claim 38, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Bajorek discloses a magnetic stripe (magnetic strip 26), however does not explicitly disclose a chip module. Varga discloses a chip module [008]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Varga is analogous art and it is old and well known in the art to use chip modules for enhanced security.
Regarding claim 39, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 38. Varga further discloses chip module comprises a contact chip module or a dual interface chip module [008].
Regarding claim 41, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Bajorek fails to explicitly disclose a hologram. Varga discloses a hologram [005] [012]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Varga is analogous art and it is old and well known in the art to use holograms for enhanced security.
Regarding claim 42, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 41. Varga further discloses a signature panel [012].
Regarding claim 48, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bajorek further discloses the monolithic ceramic card body consists of a single ceramic layer [FIG 1A].
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajorek 6,482,330 in view of Varga et al. 2009/0294543, as applied to claims 1-8, 30, 31, 34, 38-39, 41-42, 48, and in further view of Yamauchi et al. 5,267,755.
Regarding claim 32, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Bajorek fails to explicitly disclose an optical machine-readable representation of data. Yamauchi discloses a barcode [ col 3, l. 30-34]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Yamauchi is analogous art and it is old and well known in the art to use barcodes to store data.
Regarding claim 33, Bajorek in view of Varga and Yamauchi discloses all of the limitations of claim 32. Yamauchi further discloses a barcode [col 3, l. 30-34].
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajorek 6,482,330 in view of Varga et al. 2009/0294543, as applied to claims 1-8, 30, 31, 34, 38-39, 41-42, 48, and in further view of Kaminsky et al. 7,063,924.
Regarding claim 35, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, both fail to explicitly disclose the ceramic card body is a product of an injection molding process. Kaminsky discloses an injection molding process [col. 23, l. 19-22]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Kaminsky discloses, “… provides improved security for security media. The invention includes an image and a base material with areas of specular and diffuse reflection in a pattern to form a customizable security feature.” [col 3, l. 25-30]
Claim 37, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajorek 6,482,330 in view of Varga et al. 2009/0294543, as applied to claims 1-8, 30, 31, 34, 38-39, 41-42, 48, and in further view of Finn 2016/0110639.
Regarding claim 37, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, both fail to explicitly disclose the ceramic card body is a product of 3D printing process. Finn discloses 3D printing process [0325]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Finn discloses, “It is a further object of the invention to provide improved transponder chip modules (TCM) and improved techniques for manufacturing transponder chip module” [043].
Regarding claim 40, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Bajorek fails to explicitly disclose a booster antenna. Finn discloses a booster antenna [0142] [FIG 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Finn discloses. “It is a further object of the invention to provide improved transponder chip modules (TCM) and improved techniques for manufacturing transponder chip module” [043].
Claim 43-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajorek 6,482,330 in view of Varga et al. 2009/0294543, as applied to claims 1-8, 30, 31, 34, 38-39, 41-42, 48, and in further view of Iwamoto et al. 6,502,757.
Regarding claim 43, Bajorek in view of Varga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Bajorek fails to explicitly disclose one or more luminophors included in the monolithic ceramic card body. Iwamoto discloses one or more luminophors included in the card body [col 18, l. 26-33]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as luminophors are known for their energy saving advantages.
Regarding claim 44, Bajorek in view of Varga and Iwamoto discloses all of the limitations of claim 43. Iwamoto further discloses the one or more luminophors are operable to shift incident light upfield or downfield (diffraction grating ) [col 18, l. 23-33].
Regarding claim 45, Bajorek in view of Varga and Iwamoto discloses all of the limitations of claim 44. Iwamoto further discloses the shift of incident light caused by the one or more luminophors included in the monolithic ceramic card body define an identification marking [col 18, l. 23-33].
Regarding claim 46, Bajorek in view of Varga and Iwamoto discloses all of the limitations of claim 44. Iwamoto further discloses the identification marking is a unique identification marking [col 14, l. 44-54].
Regarding claim 47, Bajorek in view of Varga and Iwamoto discloses all of the limitations of claim 43. Iwamoto further discloses the one or more luminophors comprise phosphors [col 18, l. 28].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. None of the cited prior art of record discloses the monolithic ceramic card body is a product of machining process comprising machining a block of ceramic larger than the monolithic ceramic card body down to a size of the monolithic ceramic card body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 30-48 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.
Applicant has amended 1 to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of Bajorek. However, upon further search and consideration, the Examiner has provided a new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Bajorek in view of Varga, please see above for citations. Further claim 36 is objected to for having allowable subject matter. All other pending claims are rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASIFA HABIB whose telephone number is (571)270-7032. The examiner can normally be reached 10-4:30pm.
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, Steve Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/ASIFA HABIB/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights