Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/896,336

METALLIC SHEET WITH SECURITY WINDOW AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 25, 2024
Examiner
GRABOWSKI, KYLE ROBERT
Art Unit
3637
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Valaurum Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
64%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
647 granted / 1341 resolved
-3.8% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
1399
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
41.4%
+1.4% vs TC avg
§102
33.4%
-6.6% vs TC avg
§112
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1341 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trexler et al. (US 2019/0351694) in view of Rivlin et al. (US 2016/0140570). In respect to claims 1 and 2, Trexler et al. disclose a cryptographic note comprising: a first transparent substrate 14; a first base layer 16 deposited on the first transparent substrate; a second base layer 16 deposited [indirectly] on the first base layer 16; and a second transparent substrate 14 formed on the second base layer 16 (0035; Fig. 1); the first and second base layers 16 are opaque (metal), and a code is provided therebetween, such as a private key (0039); the cryptographic note is configured to be delaminated to be irreversibly separated to expose the private key, and to cause irreversible damage e.g. separation into distinct layers via release material patterning (0034, 0041). Trexler et al. do not disclose a public key, viewable through a window in the first base layer, however, Rivlin et al. teach a very similar cryptographic note wherein a private key is hidden by base layers, and the cryptographic note is irreversibly delaminated and destroyed upon opening to view the private key (Abstract). Furthermore, Rivlin et al. teach providing the matching public key on the same surface as the private key, and providing a window in the first base layer (upper opaque layer) (0019; Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to provide the cryptographic note taught in Trexler et al. with a matching public key viewable through a window in the base layer in view of Rivlin et al. to simplify printing of the private and public keys (0019). In respect to claims 3 and 4, Trexler et al. disclose holograms (which may be demetallized with opening) (0015). In respect to claims 5-7, Trexler et al. disclose that the first and second base layer may comprise a metal on both sides of the private key, thus forming “RF blocking layers” (0019). In respect to claim 8, Trexler et al. in view of Rivlin et al. do not explicitly teach the type of metal layer, e.g. a “precious metal”, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to *, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Precious metals, e.g. silver/gold are well known vacuum deposited metals. In respect to claims 9 and 10, Trexler et al. disclose a hologram as stated above, which may be construed as a marking having a “spectral-shifting coating or treatment”. In respect to claim 11-12 and 14-20, Trexler et al. disclose the claimed invention for the reasons stated above, including printing and providing the public and private key at the same time. Although measures such as “any data not being saved to a network” and “verifying that the public encryption key and private encryption key have been printed” is obvious. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely, utilizing basic and routine security measures in providing public/private encryption keys. In respect to claim 13, Rivlin et al. further teach a hologram, and that the hologram may be on the lower layer (second base layer) (0016). Although Rivlin does not disclose a particular size of the opening, only that it is at least large enough to reveal the public key, it would have been obvious to provide the opening to extend beyond the public key. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely, providing viewing of the hologram on the lower layer (second base layer) in order to reveal the hologram previous to opening of the cryptographic note. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (US 2024/0146522), Kresse et al. (US 2009/0091457), Lee (US 2023/0121749), Kocher et al. (US 2023/0151551), Gell et al. (GB 2,508,264), and Schultze (DE 20-2014-103081), disclose similar inventions. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm. 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 Troy, can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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. /KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 25, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603020
DISPLAY STAND WITH CARDBOARD BASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600160
PERSONALIZABLE SECURITY DOCUMENT AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594488
Challenge Cribbage Game Device and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593820
Livestock Management System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582898
HANDSFREE DICE ROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
64%
With Interview (+16.0%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1341 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month