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 .
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.
Claim(s) 8-13 is\are 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.
Claim 8 recites --wherein the first planar wall member and the second planar wall member have a height (Hw) and the side edge wall member has have a height (Hs), wherein (Hs) is less than (Hw),-- which lacks antecedent basis in the DRAWINGS (i.e., see FIG. 1 below). For purposes of examination --(Hw)-- will be interpreted as --(Hp)-- with support in FIG. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
427
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 9-13 rejected by dependency of claim 8.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 is\are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et. al. (U. S. Patent US8776846B1) hereinafter THOMPSON, in view of Courty (France Patent Application Publication FR3031244A1) hereinafter COURTY.
Regarding claim 1, THOMPSON teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 5 below) a sleeve 20 configured to hold a portable information-bearing card 22 that includes a magnetic strip, an RFID chip, and/or a data chip and that has standard credit card layout and dimensions (FIG. 5) including a length T5-01, height T5-02, and thickness T1-01,
wherein the sleeve 20 comprises:
first and second planar walls 36/24/42 each having an upper wall region 36 and a lower wall region 24/42, the first and second planar walls 36/24/42 being disposed in spaced parallel relationship (FIG. 3) to each other,
wherein each planar wall 36/24/42 has a peripheral edge (FIG. 5) defined by first and second side edges 30/32, an upper edge 26, and a bottom edge 28,
wherein:
each bottom edge 28 is located at a lower end (FIG. 5) of each lower wall region 24/42;
each upper edge 26 is located at an upper end (FIG. 5) of each upper wall region 36;
each side edge 30/32 of each planar wall 36/24/42 extends alongside both the upper 36 and lower wall regions 24/42 of that planar wall 36/24/42 between the upper and lower edges 26/28 of that planar wall 36/24/42;
the bottom edge 28 of each planar wall 36/24/42 is connected to the bottom edge 28 of the other planar wall 36/24/42, thereby forming a bottom wall T2-00;
the lower wall region 24/42 of each planar wall 36/24/42 is connected to the lower wall region 24/42 of the other planar wall 36/24/42 along the first side edges 32 of the planar walls 36/24/42, thereby forming a side wall T2-01; and
the planar walls 36/24/42 being sized relative to the dimensions of the card 22, such that the planar walls 36/24/42, bottom wall T2-00, and side wall T2-01 together form a housing (FIG. 5) that can removably retain the card 22 inside the housing (FIG. 5) and that is accessible for insertion or removal of the card 22 from either an upper edge opening T2-02 or a second side edge opening T2-03;
wherein:
each upper wall region 36 is separated from the lower wall region 24/42 by at least one detent T1-02 extending at least partially between the upper edge 26 and second edge 32 in a direction parallel to the bottom wall T2-00,
whereby that upper wall region 36 can flexibly bend out of plane (Y-Z) with the lower wall region 24/42; and
the at least one detent T1-02 is located at a height T5-03 from the bottom wall T2-00 that is greater than a height of the magnetic strip from the bottom of the card 22
wherein:
the second side edge 30 of each planar wall 36/24/42 is adjacent to the second side edge 30 of the other planar wall 36/24/42 without being connected to each other so as to provide the side edge opening T2-03,
whereby in use with the card 22 in the sleeve 20, the card 22 may be advanced partially out through the side edge opening T2-03 to thereby enable use of the data chip for a transaction without removing the card 22 from the sleeve 20.
THOMPSON fails to teach planar walls 36/24/42 are visibly and transmissively opaque, whereby in use with the card 22 in the sleeve 20, the planar walls 36/24/42 can prevent visible or transmissive access to the data stored on the card 22.
THOMPSON fails to teach each edge 26/28/30/32 of the peripheral edges (FIG. 5) of the planar walls 36/24/42 is rectilinear.
THOMPSON fails to teach detent T1-02 extending at least partially between the first and second edges 26/28 in a direction parallel to the bottom wall T2-00.
THOMPSON fails to teach a height T5-03 from the bottom wall T2-00 that is less than a height of the magnetic strip from the bottom of the card 22.
THOMPSON fails to teach whereby in use with the card 22 in the sleeve 20 in contact with the bottom wall T2-00, the magnetic strip can be covered by one of the upper wall regions 36 when that upper wall region 36 is not deflected out of plane (Y-Z) with the lower wall region 24/42, and can be uncovered for swiping in a card reader by bending the upper wall 36 away from the card 22 to thereby enable use of the magnetic strip for a transaction without removing the card 22 from the sleeve 20.
However, COURTY teaches (see Fig 1 below) a blocking device 1 wherein outer sheet 6 is visibly and transmissively opaque (page 2, 4th paragraph, lines 6-12, “… blocking of RFID…”), whereby in use with the card 2 in the sleeve 8, the planar walls 4 to prevent visible or transmissive access to the data stored on the card 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified planar walls 36/24/42 in the sleeve 10 of THOMPSON with planar walls 4 as taught in the blocking device 1 of COURTY to prevent visible or transmissive access.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified each edge 26/28/30/32 (i.e., rectilinear) / detent T1-02 (i.e., extending at least partially between the first and second edges 26/28) / height T5-03 (i.e., less than a height of the magnetic strip from the bottom of the card 22) / upper wall regions 36 (i.e., magnetic strip can be covered by one of the upper wall regions 36) in the sleeve 10 of THOMPSON and COURTY to meet design requirements since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
PNG
media_image2.png
616
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
485
740
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
422
340
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
532
694
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
761
673
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, THOMPSON, and COURTY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. THOMPSON further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 5 above) sleeve 20, further comprising a bottom wall T2-00 member that connects the bottom edges 28 of the planar walls 36/24/42 together and that extends arcuately to the planar walls 36/24/42, whereby the bottom wall T2-00 is formed by the bottom wall T2-00 member and the bottom edges 28 of the planar walls 36/24/42.
THOMPSON fails to teach bottom wall T2-00 member that connects the bottom edges 28 of the planar walls 36/24/42 together and that extends perpendicular to the planar walls 36/24/42.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified bottom wall T2-00 member (i.e., to extend perpendicular to the planar walls 36/24/42) in the sleeve 10 of THOMPSON and COURTY to meet design requirements since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 3, THOMPSON, and COURTY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. THOMPSON further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 5 above) sleeve 20, further comprising a side wall T2-01 member that connects the first side edges 32 of the lower wall regions 36/42 of the planar walls 36/24/42 together and that extends arcuately to the planar walls 36/24/42, whereby the side wall T2-01 is formed by the side wall T2-01 member and the first side edges 32 of the planar walls 36/24/42.
THOMPSON fails to teach side wall T2-01 member that connects the first side edges 32 of the lower wall regions 36/42 of the planar walls 36/24/42 together and that extends perpendicular to the planar walls 36/24/42.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified side wall T2-01 member (i.e., to extend perpendicular to the planar walls 36/24/42) in the sleeve 10 of THOMPSON and COURTY to meet design requirements since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 7, THOMPSON, and COURTY (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of THOMPSON (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 5 above) and COURTY (see Fig 1 above) further teaches sleeve 20, wherein the side edge opening T2-03 together with the bendable upper regions 36 enables a user to flex the upper regions 36 outward, grasp the card 22 along its top edge, and partially slide the card 22 out through the side edge opening T2-03 for use of the data chip in a transaction while maintaining the visible and transmissive opaque protection of portions of the card 22 that remain in the sleeve 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-6 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.
Claim(s) 8-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claim(s) 14 allowable since a combination of THOMPSON, and COURTY discloses a -sleeve-- [page 7, line 1] to hold a --portable information-bearing card-- [page 7, line 1], they do not teach the specific structure of an --at least one aperture defined in the central body region-- [page 7, line 51]. Further, it would not be obvious to further modify the respective references to satisfy these limitations, as such modifications would cause the references to operate in a fashion that is inconsistent with that which was intended by their respective inventors. Accordingly, such modifications would be highly indicative of the use of improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rodríguez Martínez et al. (Spain Patent Application Publication ES2257915A1): teaches a “cover” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Husbands (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20160113369A1): teaches a “device” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Bernard (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20190387850A1): teaches a “wallet” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Robinson (U. S. Design Patent USD907364S1): teaches a “sleeve” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735