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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Para 10-64) The Figure descriptions recite that the Figures illustrate various embodiments and for each say “according to some embodiments”. The drawing clearly show specific embodiments and it is unclear what embodiments are being described in each of the Figure descriptions.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 84-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 84 recites “ flexible member”. The examiner believes that the applicant is combining different embodiments. “Flexible member” is combining the embodiment claimed with other embodiments The flexible member is in wallet 3600 shown in Fig 36-39 of the instant application drawing. In the applicant in the response to the restriction filed 5/6/2026, the applicant selected the species I embodiment shown in Figs 1-13.
Claims 85 is rejected due to their dependencies.
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.
Claims 77-78, 81, 89-90 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 77 recites “the at least one card is configured to be disposed and in contact with both the card receiving surface and the back layer”. It is unclear whether the card is intended to be part of the invention because the card is not positively recited and the invention is directed to a wallet.
Claim 81 recites “the at least one card is configured to slide”. It is unclear whether the card is intended to be part of the invention.
Claim 89 recites “wherein the at least one card is configured to be slideably coupled to the first rail and the second rail, and wherein at least one additional card is configured to be slideably coupled”. It is unclear whether the card is intended to be part of the invention.
Claim 90 recites “such that the at least one card or at least one additional card is configured to be received and pass through at least a portion of the frame”. It is unclear whether the card is intended to be part of the invention.
Claims 78 and 98 are rejected due to its dependency.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 75: “at least one tension element configured to securely couple the at least one card to the plate”;
Claim 75: “the at least one tension element further configured to facilitate removal of the at least one card”;
Claim 77: “wherein the back layer is configured for Radio-Frequency Identification”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 75-78, 80-83, 89-90, 96-97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and (a) (2) as being anticipated by 2014/0060712 by Beckley (Here forth “Beckley”).
Regarding claim 75, Beckley discloses A wallet, comprising: a plate extending along a first direction and a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley), the plate comprising a card receiving surface and an outer facing surface opposite to the card receiving surface (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley), the plate configured to receive at least one card (Para 35 of Beckley), wherein the plate defines at least a first edge, a second edge, a third edge, and a fourth edge (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley); a first rail coupled to the plate and extending along the first direction (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley), the first direction parallel with a lateral axis of the plate (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley); a second rail coupled to the plate and spaced from the first rail along the second direction (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley), the second rail extending along the first direction (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley), the second direction parallel with a longitudinal axis of the plate(Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley); and at least one tension element configured to securely couple the at least one card to the plate (Fig 1 of Beckley, clip 3), the at least one tension element further configured to facilitate removal of the at least one card along at least two of the first edge, the second edge, the third edge, and the fourth edge (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley; Para 35 of Beckley, spring clip 3 secures such as currency and is capable of securing cards that can be pulled out from under the clip along any two of the four edges).
PNG
media_image1.png
723
1341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
431
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figures of Fig 1 of Beckley
Regarding claim 76, Beckley further discloses wherein the at least one tension element comprises a clip configured to wrap around at least a portion of the plate (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley; Fig 1 of Beckley, retention spring 4 has back layer portion that wraps around a portion of the plate), so as to apply a tension against the at least one card, thereby coupling the at least one card against the card receiving surface (Para 35 of Beckley).
Regarding claim 77, Beckley further discloses wherein the clip comprises a back layer configured to be disposed over and facing the card receiving surface (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley), such that the at least one card is configured to be disposed and in contact with both the card receiving surface and the back layer (Para 35 of Beckley), wherein the back layer is configured for Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) blocking (Para 48 of Beckley, material of entire wallet including back layer can be make of RFID blocking material).
Regarding claim 78, Beckley further discloses wherein the plate further comprises a first sidewall and a second sidewall extending from the card receiving surface towards the back layer (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley).
Regarding claim 80, Beckley further discloses wherein the first rail and the second rail are disposed on the outer facing surface, the first rail and the second rail configured to slidably couple to one or more additional cards therethrough (Examiner annotated Fig 1 of Beckley; Fig 1 of Beckley, container portion 1 containing cards slides on rails).
Regarding claim 81, Beckley further discloses wherein the at least one card is configured to slide to pass over the first edge and the second edge, and be secured within the third edge and the fourth edge (Examiner annotated Fig 1 of Beckley, the card can slide within the first and second edge and be secured within all edges).
Regarding claim 82, Beckley further discloses wherein the at least one tension element includes at least one of a tongue and at least one protruding portion (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley).
Regarding claim 83, Beckley further discloses wherein the tongue is configured to extend i) from the card receiving surface, ii) through the card receiving surface, or iii) both, so as to push the at least one card to the first rail and the second rail, thereby securing the at least one card to the plate (Examiner annotated Fig 1 of Beckley and Fig 1 of Beckley, when a card is pressed against the card receiving surface via the tongue, the card is also pressed against the rails that are attached on the outer facing surface).
Regarding claim 89, Beckley further discloses further comprising: a first sidewall extending from the card receiving surface, wherein the first rail is disposed on the first sidewall (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley); a second sidewall extending from the card receiving surface, wherein the second rail is disposed on the second sidewall (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley); a third sidewall extending from the outer facing surface; a third rail disposed on the third sidewall (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley); a fourth sidewall extending from the outer facing surface; and a fourth rail disposed on the fourth sidewall (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley), wherein the at least one card is configured to be slideably coupled to the first rail and the second rail, and wherein at least one additional card is configured to be slideably coupled to the third rail and the fourth rail, so as to be removably secured to the plate (Fig 1 of Beckley container 1 contains additional cards and slides to couple with all 4 rails).
Regarding claim 90, Beckley further discloses further comprising a clip removably coupled to the plate, wherein the clip includes a front side configured to be disposed over and facing i) the card receiving surface, ii) the outer facing surface, or iii) both, wherein the front side includes a frame, such that the at least one card or at least one additional card is configured to be received and pass through at least a portion of the frame (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley).
Regarding claim 96, Beckley further discloses wherein the tongue extends from the card receiving surface (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley, the tongue of the clip extends from the card receiving surface).
Regarding claim 97, Beckley further discloses wherein the plate further comprises a back portion configured to be disposed over and facing the outer facing surface, and wherein the tongue extends from the back portion (Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Beckley).
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.
Claim 79 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckley.
Regarding claim 79, Beckley does not expressly disclose wherein the first rail is configured to extend through at least a portion of a front layer of the clip, wherein the front layer is disposed over and facing the outer facing surface.
Beckley discloses the claimed invention except for the first rail is configured to extend through at least a portion of a front layer of the clip, wherein the front layer is disposed over and facing the outer facing surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the application was filed to move the clip such that a portion of the first rail is configured to extend through a portion of the clip, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim 95 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckley in view of US Publication 20230096354 by Tran (Here forth “Tran”).
Regarding claim 95, Beckley does not expressly disclose opening vents disposed on clip
Tran discloses a similar wallet that teaches further comprising one or more openings or vents that are disposed about i) the clip, ii) the plate, or iii) both, for receiving lanyards, neck lanyards, keys, bottle openers, or any combination thereof, therethrough (Fig 3 of Tran, bottle aperture 36).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Beckley and Tran before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the wallet of Beckley to include openings on clip, as taught by Tran, to advantageously open bottles.
Different Embodiment Combined
Claim 79, 84-88 and 98 have no Prior art that has been cited as it is unclear what the applicant means:
Regarding claims 84-85, the flexible member is shown in a different embodiment than the one the applicant has selected in the response to the restriction submitted 5/11/2026.
Regarding claims 86-88 and 98, the middle portion, first flap and second flaps are shown in a different embodiment than the one the applicant has selected in the response to the restriction submitted 5/11/2026.
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 8 June 2026
Prosecution Insights