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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/4/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment to the claims of application #19153454 received on 8/4/2025. Claims 1-9 are amended. Claims 1-9 are pending. All pending claims are considered and examined.
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.
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 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalo et al. (US 20190012588 A1; cited by Applicant IDS) in view of Tatsu (US 20140016286 A1; cited by Applicant IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Lalo discloses (Fig. 2A) a packaged electronic module and manufacturing method thereof comprising:
a card body formed by a stack of layers that are rigidly connected to one another (¶25); and
an electronic module 140 (¶26) comprising:
on an upper side of the electronic module, a terminal block of metal contacts 142 (¶26) configured to interact with the corresponding contacts of a smart card reader (¶2 - dual-interface; ¶25); and
on a lower side of the electronic module, a display screen 138 (¶27),
wherein the electronic module is integrated into a cavity formed on the upper side of the card body (¶27),
wherein the display screen is positioned at the bottom of the cavity (¶27) so as to be visible from the lower side of the smart card (Fig. 2),
wherein the bottom of the cavity has multiple machining depths, and wherein the machining depths are adapted to the thickness of the display screen and to the thickness of other electronic components arranged on the lower side of the electronic module (¶27 - the step of milling a card 150 from the front of the card to the back protective overlay 164, but leaving the protective overlay 164 intact, which should be transparent if for example 138 is an electronic display, and embedding the packaged electronic module 140 from the front of the card. In this case the thickness of the packaged electronic module 140 will be equal to that of the card minus the thickness of that back protective layer. The milled area 154 should conform to the shape of the packaged electronic module 140; see amended Fig. 2A below – first depth X1 and second depth X2).
PNG
media_image1.png
316
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lalo does not explicitly disclose the display screen is positioned at the bottom of the cavity in a transparent layer of the card body, wherein the card body comprises a generally opaque layer arranged under the transparent layer of the card body and having a non-opaque reserve zone formed opposite the display screen.
Tatsu teaches (Fig. 2) a card with built-in electronic component comprising: the display screen 3 (¶72) is positioned in a transparent layer 13 of the card body (¶86), wherein the card body comprises a generally opaque layer 11/14 arranged adjacent the transparent layer of the card body and having a non-opaque reserve zone 30 formed opposite the display screen (¶88).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the card layers of Lalo with the transparent card body layer and the non-opaque reserve zone in a shielding layer of Tatsu by having the layer which the display screen is in to be transparent and having a shielding layer with a non-opaque reserve zone at the bottom of the cavity in order to be suitable for a screen-printed ink surface (Tatsu: ¶102) enabling visual design versatility.
Regarding claim 4, Lalo modified by Tatsu teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the electronic module is fastened in the cavity of the card body using a transparent hot-melt adhesive film arranged on the lower side of the electronic module on and around the display screen, and wherein the other electronic components are arranged in relief on the lower side of the electronic module (Tatsu: ¶86 - pouring a liquid transparent resin as an adhesive; ¶90 - the poured transparent resin that also serves as the adhesive; ¶104 - adhesive is poured to form the core layer … the structure is left for a predetermined period of time until the adhesive to be the core layer is hardened; ¶109 - A cold-setting adhesive is used as the filling adhesive).
Regarding claim 5, Lalo modified by Tatsu teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the electronic module is fastened in the cavity of the card body using an opaque hot-melt adhesive film that is rolled on the periphery of the lower side of the electronic module around the display screen and the other components thereof (Tatsu: ¶104).
Regarding claim 6, Lalo modified by Tatsu teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the electronic module is fastened in the cavity of the card body using a transparent liquid adhesive dispensed at the bottom of the cavity so as to surround and cover the display screen (Tatsu: ¶86, ¶90, ¶104, ¶109).
Regarding claim 7, Lalo modified by Tatsu teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the electronic module is fastened in the cavity of the card body using: a hot-melt adhesive film that is rolled around the periphery of the electronic module; and a transparent liquid adhesive dispensed at the bottom of the cavity in the zone intended to be opposite the display screen (Tatsu: ¶104).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalo modified by Tatsu further in view of Finn et al. (US 20250139397 A1; herein referred to as Finn 397).
Regarding claim 2, Lalo modified by Tatsu teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the generally opaque layer is produced by white opaque printing on the transparent layer of the card body, and wherein the non-opaque reserve zone is produced by an absence of white opaque printing opposite the zone provided for the display screen.
Finn 397 teaches a RFID-enabled transaction cards of metal and plastic comprising: Transparent (translucent, white, or colored) print layer with a thickness of 152 μm (6 mils) with printed information (PI) comprising primer and ink applied thereto (digitally, silk screen or offset lithographically printed layer) with an additional thickness of 25 μm (¶424).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the screen-printed ink surface of Lalo modified by Tatsu with the white opaque printing of Finn 397 in order to effectively create the opaque and non-opaque areas through the screen-printing method.
Regarding claim 3, Lalo modified by Tatsu and Finn 397 teaches the apparatus of claim 2 above and further teaches wherein the layers of the card body comprise, in order: a transparent upper protective layer (Lalo: ¶27; Tatsu: ¶84-¶85); a first printed layer having a graphical personalization (Tatsu: ¶102); an insert having an antenna (Lalo: ¶25; Tatsu: ¶118); a transparent layer in which the bottom of the cavity extends (Tatsu: ¶86), wherein the transparent layer is coated with the white opaque printing with the exception of the non-opaque reserve zone (Finn 397: ¶424); a second printed layer having a graphical personalization (Finn 397: ¶80; front and rear are printed); and a transparent lower protective layer (Tatsu: ¶84-¶85).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalo modified by Tatsu further in view of Finn et al. (US 20230086189 A1; herein referred to as Finn 189).
Regarding claim 8, Lalo modified by Tatsu teaches the apparatus of claim 7 above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the transparent liquid adhesive comprises: an acrylic or cyanoacrylate adhesive that can be polymerized by UV; a monocomponent epoxy adhesive that can be pre-activated by UV; a bicomponent epoxy adhesive that can be polymerized at room temperature; an acrylic-based pressure-sensitive liquid adhesive; or a polyurethane bicomponent adhesive that can be polymerized at about 80°C.
Fin 189 teaches (Fig. 6B) a encapsulating a metal inlay with thermosetting resin and method for making a metal transaction card comprising: The thermosetting resin (e.g., epoxy or polyurethane) may be roll coated to the cured thermosetting adhesive film layer to a defined thickness (¶57). The curing of polyurethanes at temperatures between 50 and 110° C (¶365).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the transparent liquid adhesive of Lalo modified by Tatsu with the thermosetting resin of Finn 189 as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalo modified by Tatsu further in view of Finn 189, further in view of Finn 397.
Regarding claim 9, Lalo modified by Tatsu teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above forming a rolled multilayer card body (Tatsu: ¶104); machining, in the card body, a cavity configured to receive an electronic module (Lalo: ¶27) comprising, on its lower side, with a display screen (Lalo: ¶27); and transferring the electronic module in the cavity by orienting the lower side of the electronic module toward the lower side of the smart card (Lalo: ¶27).
Lalo modified by Tatsu does not explicitly disclose adhesively bonding the electronic module in the cavity; wherein forming the rolled multilayer card body comprises printing, on a layer of the card body located under the electronic module, an opaque white layer having a transparent reservation in the zone configured to be opposite the display screen after the electronic module is integrated.
Finn 189 teaches adhesively bonding the electronic module in the cavity (Finn 189: ¶49, ¶57).
Finn 397 teaches: Transparent (translucent, white, or colored) print layer with a thickness of 152 μm (6 mils) with printed information (PI) comprising primer and ink applied thereto (digitally, silk screen or offset lithographically printed layer) with an additional thickness of 25 μm (Finn 397: ¶424).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to
provide the electronic module insertion of Lalo modified by Tatsu at a time such that it is adhesively bonded in the cavity as taught by Finn 189 in order to ensure encapsulation of an entire area (Finn 189: ¶49) and
provide the screen-printed ink surface of Lalo modified by Tatsu with the white opaque printing of Finn 397 in order to effectively create the opaque and non-opaque areas through the screen-printing method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN C LY whose telephone number is (571)270-7898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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, Steven 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.
/TOAN C LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights