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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/10/2026 has been entered.
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 1-5, 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 Jones 2005/0109850.
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, the transaction card further comprising at least one laser-marked feature disposed on the body, the at least one laser-marked feature having a decorative design feature formed by applying a laser source to modify the color or texture of the transaction card.
Jones discloses one or more pigments in the monolithic ceramic card body sufficient to impart a color to the transaction card [70] [093], the transaction card further comprising at least one laser-marked feature disposed on the body, the at least one laser-marked feature having a decorative design feature formed by applying a laser source to modify the color or texture of the transaction card [093]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Jones is analogous art that discloses, “Persons skilled in the printing art will appreciate that with some of these printing techniques, the "inks" used need not necessarily be conventional liquid inks but also could be solid phase change inks, solid colors, dyes, etc. This disclosure is intended to include any means of affixing the information to a particular desired surface.” [93].
Regarding claim 2, Bajorek in view of Jones 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 Jones 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 Jones 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 Jones discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Jones 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 8, Bajorek in view of Jones 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 Jones 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.
Jones 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 [086] [FIG 16, #610] .
Regarding claim 31, Bajorek in view of Jones discloses all of the limitations of claim 30. Jones further discloses a magnetic stripe disposed on a non-roughened surface of the monolithic card body [FIG 1].
Regarding claim 34, Bajorek in view of Jones discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Bajorek and Jones fails to explicitly disclose the monolithic ceramic card body has a dimension of 3.37 inches x 2.125 inches x 0.03 inches. However, those dimensions are the standardized sizing for a payment card, and thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Jones is analogous art and those are the ISO standards for a card dimensions.
Regarding claim 38, Bajorek in view of Jones 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. Jones discloses a chip module [59] [193]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Jones 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 Jones discloses all of the limitations of claim 38. Jones further discloses chip module comprises a contact chip module or a dual interface chip module [59].
Regarding claim 41, Bajorek in view of Jones discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Bajorek fails to explicitly disclose a hologram. Jones discloses a hologram [193]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Jones 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 Jones discloses all of the limitations of claim 41. Jones further discloses a signature panel [FIG 3, #16].
Regarding claim 48, Bajorek in view of Jones 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 Jones et al. 2005/0109850, as applied to claims 1-5, 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 Jones 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 Jones 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 Jones et al. 2005/0109850, as applied to claims 1-5, 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 Jones 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 Jones et al. 2005/0109850, as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 30, 31, 34, 38-39, 41-42, 48, and in further view of Finn 2016/0110639.
Regarding claim 37, Bajorek in view of Jones 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 Jones 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 Jones et al. 2005/0109850, as applied to claims 1-5, 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 Jones 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 Jones 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 Jones 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 Jones 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 Jones 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. 103 rejection of Bajorek in view of Varga. However, upon further search and consideration, the Examiner has provided a new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Bajorek in view of Jones, please see above for citations. Jones discloses a ceramic card on par 70, and further states that laser engraving is used to impart color on said card, thus the combination of Bajorek and Johns teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Further claim 36 is objected to for having allowable subject matter. All other pending claims are rejected.
Conclusion
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