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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the clip being approximately as far as the base must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim 11 and the side webs have different heights canceled from the claim 12. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 claims 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“flexible by means of recesses” in claim 2;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites” that the cover is flexible by means of recesses”. It is unclear how recesses make the cover flexible and specification does not explain how it makes the cover flexible. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the cover to be flexible and have a net-like pattern of recesses and webs.
Claims 2, 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected due to its dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and (a) (2) as being anticipated by US Publication 2023/0248127 by Tran (Here forth “Tran”).
Regarding claim 1, Tran discloses a holder device for cards and/or banknotes (Examiner Annotated Fig 1C of Tran), comprising an upwardly open housing which has a base (Examiner Annotated Fig 1C of Tran), wherein the base has upwardly projecting side webs arranged at a distance from one another (Examiner Annotated Fig 1C of Tran), wherein the side webs together with the base at least in sections form an insertion compartment for cards (Examiner Annotated Fig 1C of Tran), and wherein a cover is pivotably connected to the housing or to a side web (Examiner Annotated Fig 1C of Tran), wherein the cover or a part of the cover is flexibly expandable in its width and/or length at least in regions by 4% to 15% (Examiner Annotated Fig 1C of Tran and Fig 2 of Tran, flexible member 22 allows the cover to expand over the base at least 4 percent based on the length of the flexible member 22).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Fig 1C of Tran
Regarding claim 6, Tran further discloses wherein the cover has a pocket for accommodating coins (Examiner Annotated Fig 1C of Tran).
Regarding claim 7, Tran further discloses wherein the pocket is arranged on the inner side of the cover and formed by an outer layer of the cover and an inner layer, which are connected to each other, with an insertion opening for coins being provided (Examiner Annotated Fig 1C of Tran).
Regarding claim 8, Tran further discloses wherein the outer layer and the inner layer are connected to each other by a yarn or an elastic yarn (Para 27 of Tran, there is stitching).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-3 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of US Patent 9894789 issued to Hamada (Here forth “Hamada”).
Regarding claim 2, Tran further discloses wherein the cover or a part of the cover is designed to be flexible [Not taught: by means of recesses formed in or on it] in such a way that it is expandable in its width and/or length at least in regions by 4% to 15% (Examiner Annotated Fig 1C of Tran and Fig 2 of Tran, flexible member 22 allows the cover to expand over the base at least 4 percent based on the length of the flexible member 22).
Tran does not expressly disclose the cover flexible by means of recesses formed on it.
Hamada further discloses the cover flexible by means of recesses formed on it (Column 3 para 1 of Hamada, the material can be used on a wallet, Column 2 lines 35-38 of Hamada, portions of the cover are flexible; Fig 5 of Hamada, there are net-like openings/recesses and webs between the opens that form the material; the net-like structure is formed by recesses and webs, wherein the webs separate the recesses from one another at least in regions).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Tran and Hamanda before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the holder device of Tran to change the material to include recesses with webs to create a net-like structure on the cover, as taught by Hamanda, to advantageously allow signals through (Column 4 Para 4 of Hamada) such as near field communication.
Regarding claim 3, Tran further discloses wherein the length of a broad side of the cover or of an outer layer of the cover in the unloaded state can be brought into a length in the expanded state that is 4% to 15% greater than the length in the unloaded state (Examiner Annotated Fig 1C of Tran and Fig 2 of Tran, flexible member 22 allows the cover to expand the length of the broad side over the base at least 4 percent based on the length of the flexible member 22).
Regarding claim 4, Tran as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the recesses form a net-like structure (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 2; Fig 6 of Hamanda).
Regarding claim 5, Tran as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the net-like structure is formed by recesses and webs, wherein the webs separate the recesses from one another at least in regions (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 2; Fig 6 of Hamanda).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of US Publication 2004/0173482 by Nieves (Here forth “Nieves”).
Regarding claim 9, Tran does not expressly disclose that the inner layer has an insertion-side edge tongue.
Nieves disclose a similar wallet that teaches wherein the inner layer has an insertion-side edge tongue which is movable and/or reversibly foldable away or back relative to a remaining region of the inner layer by means of at least one slot-like cutout such that an insertion opening for coins can be enlarged (Examiner Annotated Fig 3 of Nieves, tongue is the portion from the edge of the opening to the cutout end where it meets the inner wall, this cut allows the tongue portion to fold away to a certain degree).
PNG
media_image2.png
466
453
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Fig 3 of Nieves
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Tran and Nieves before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the holder device of Tran to include cutouts so that the insertion opening can be enlarged, as taught by Nieves, to advantageously aid the user in opening the pocket to fit items within.
Regarding claim 10, Tran does not expressly disclose that the inner layer has an insertion-side edge tongue.
Nieves disclose a similar wallet that teaches wherein the inner layer has an insertion-side edge tongue which is movable and/or foldable away or back relative to a remaining region of the inner layer by means of two opposite slot-like cutouts such that an insertion opening for coins can be enlarged (Examiner Annotated Fig 3 of Nieves, tongue is the portion from the edge of the opening to the cutout end where it meets the inner wall, this cut allows the tongue portion to fold away to a certain degree).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Tran and Nieves before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the holder device of Tran to include cutouts so that the insertion opening can be enlarged, as taught by Nieves, to advantageously aid the user in opening the pocket to fit items within.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran and Hamanda in view of US Publication 2009/0199940 by Toner (Here forth “Toner”).
Regarding claim 11, Tran does not expressly disclose a clip.
Toner discloses a similar wallet that teaches wherein at least one clip is provided which engages from above into the upwardly open housing, wherein, if neither cards nor banknotes are located in the housing, the at least one clip is located partially between the side webs and extends with a free end at least approximately as far as the base (Examiner Annotated Fig 6 of Toner).
PNG
media_image3.png
608
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Fig 6 of Toner
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Tran as modified and Toner before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the holder device of Tran as modified to include a clip, as taught by Nieves, to advantageously secure money within the holder.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran and Hamanda in view of US Patent 6886283 issued to Arraut (Here forth “Arraut”).
Regarding claim 12, Tran does not expressly disclose the side webs having difference heights.
Arraut teaches a similar holder that teaches wherein the side webs have different heights and/or in that wherein the height of a first side web is greater than the height of a second side web such that banknotes and/or cards can project beyond the first side web with a lower height out of the housing (Examiner Annotated Fig 19 of Arraut, Arraut teaches the concept of the side webs not being the same length).
PNG
media_image4.png
336
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Fig 19 of Arraut
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Tran and Arraut before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the holder device of Tran to teach the concept of the side webs being difference lengths, as taught by Arraut, to advantageously allow the user to remove the card from a side.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container taught by having the dimensions of the side webs be different. Such a modification involves only a difference in recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. Such modification would involve no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed dimensions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6655. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055 2142. 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.
/JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 24 August 2026
