FINAL REJECTION
Examiner’s Remarks
Regarding the amendment filed 3/10/2026:
The amendments to claims 1, 4-8, 10 and 14-18 are acknowledged and accepted.
The cancelation of claims 2, 9, 11and 19 is acknowledged and accepted.
The addition of new claim 20 is acknowledged and accepted.
The amendment to the abstract is acknowledged and accepted.
The examiner notes that claim 1 includes additional amendments that have not be indicated by proper markings, e.g. underlining/strike-through. More specifically the newly added limitation “wherein the light guide body is configured with an undercut area, and” does not include the proper marking (i.e. does not include the underlining for this newly added limitation).
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-5 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 1 recites “at least one engagement recess formed adjacent to the light guide body receptacle”. This implies that the engagement recess is next to the light guide body receptacle. However, the specification describes the engagement recess 33 as being formed on a side of the light guide body receptacle 3 ([0012], [0033], Fig. 1). It is noted that being formed on a side of the light guide body receptable is not equivalent to it being adjacent to the light guide body receptacle. As such, this is considered new matter.
Claims not specifically addressed fail to comply with the written description requirement due to their dependency.
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 5 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.
Claim 5 recites “at least one of an undercut region and an engagement element”. However, claim 1 recites “an undercut area”. It is unclear if the undercut region is the same as, or different than, the undercut area . Please clarify. If the same, then proper antecedent basis is needed. If they are different, then the claim language needs to better differentiate the two undercut area/region, e.g. a second undercut area. For examination purposes, “an undercut region” will be interpreted as “the undercut area”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 10, 12-18 and 20 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 6 and 10, prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, either singly or in combination, the light guide body comprises at least one security element, the at least one security element being adapted to indicate a loss of its validity upon removal of the light guide body from the light guide body receptacle, in addition to the other limitations of the claims.
Claims not specifically addressed are allowable due to their dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-5 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection in view of the amendment to claim 1 (i.e. “the light guide body is configured with an undercut area, and at least one engagement recess formed adjacent to the light guide body receptable and configured to enable the removal of the light guide body from the card body”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 6:30 pm EST.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571) 272-3689. 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.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights