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 .
Amendment
2. Receipt is acknowledged of the Amendment filed March 10, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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)(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.
4. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 15, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lowe et al (2023/0385590), hereinafter Lowe.
With respect to claim 1, Lowe illustrates in figure 1, a metal transaction card 100, having a glass body 102, comprising: a frame metal body 106 formed of a metal plate having a predetermined size of a card (paragraph 0022). Paragraph 0022 discloses the frame metal body having a glass body insertion space on a first surface of the metal plate; a glass body formed of a sheet made of a glass material and having a size configured to be insertable into the insertion space for the glass body (figure 1: partial glass layer 102 includes an interior glass member 104); an antenna inlay sheet 440 (figure 4, paragraph 0027) having an antenna 445 mounted on a surface thereof and being disposed on a second surface of the frame metal body, the second surface being opposite to the first surface (figure 5 illustrates top 507 and bottom 508 surface); and a rear printing sheet made of a synthetic resin material and being disposed on a rear surface of the antenna inlay sheet (suitable plastic layers for the at least one additional layer comprise any types of plastics known for use in cards, including but not limited to, PVC, polyester, PET, HDPE, and the like, as well as blends or co-polymers of the same).
With respect to claims 3, 8, and 16, Lowe discloses in paragraph 0022, the metal card having a glass body, further comprising an IC module for a card having contacts electrically connected to contacts of the antenna, wherein the frame metal body includes a first chip insertion hole in its main body, wherein the glass body includes a second chip insertion hole at a position corresponding to the first chip insertion hole, and wherein the IC module for a card is mounted in the first and second chip insertion holes (“Glass layer 104 has a recess 105 (which may be a though-hole or a pocket open to only one surface) configured to receive a payment module (not shown in FIG. 1). The payment module, which may be any type of payment module known in the art, typically comprises an integrated circuit (IC) chip configured for at least contactless (e.g. radio frequency (RF) identification—RFID) operation, and preferably comprises an IC chip configured for dual interface (contact and contactless) operation, as is well known in the art.”)
With respect to claims 4 and 12, Lowe teaches in paragraph 0024, the metal card having a glass body, further comprising a printed layer disposed between the glass body and the frame metal body (“one or more of layers 110, 210, 212, or other additional layers (not shown), may comprise information or graphics. The information/graphics may be printed…”
With respect to claims 9 and 15, see Lowe’s teachings above with respect to claim 1. Additionally, Lowe discloses in paragraph 0024 including a magnetic stripe (MS) insertion space on a second surface, the second surface being opposite to the first surface. Lowe further teaches laminating the layers together (paragraph 0024).
With respect to claim 13, Lowe discloses in paragraphs 0029-0030, the method of manufacturing the metal card having a glass body, wherein the step (a) further comprises: (a3) forming UV three-dimensional pattern layer on a surface of the printed layer, the UV three-dimensional pattern layer including a three-dimensional pattern formed of a UV-curable material; (a4) forming a deposition layer having a multilayer structure by sequentially depositing different materials on a surface of the UV three-dimensional pattern layer; and (a5) forming a light-blocking layer by applying a light-shielding material to a surface of the deposition layer to block light transmission.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 2 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowe in view of Mochizuki et al (2021/0216843), hereinafter Mochizuki.
Lowe’s teachings are disclosed above, including a metal frame card with RFID/antenna communication and further teaches in paragraph 0024 including an RF blocker and the limitations of claims 11 and 12 (re claim 3, 8, and 16). Lowe however fails to specifically teach an EMI absorption sheet.
With respect to claims 2 and 10, Mochizuki teaches in paragraph 0181, an RFID tag including an electromagnetic wave absorbing layer 208, which is between the antenna layer 202 and metal layer 203 (figure 19).
In view of Mochizuki’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include in Lowe’s metal card, the EMI absorption sheet taught by Mochizuki. It is it understood in the art that one would be motivated to include an EMI absorption sheet in a metal/antenna card, in order to prevent communication interference (detuning, field blockage, etc.) caused by the metal, by isolating the antenna from the method.
7. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowe in view of Condo et al (2023/0057101), hereinafter Condo.
Lowe’s teachings are disclosed above. With respect to claim 7, Lowe discloses in paragraph 0023, the metal card having a glass body, wherein the glass is flexible or conformable and are shatter-resistant. Although conformable or flexible glass often uses special films, either as a functional layer within laminated glass or applied onto existing glass, Lowe fails to specifically teach using a film.
With respect to claim 7, Condo teaches in paragraphs 0001, 0003, and 0046, including a shatterproof film for the glass.
In view of Condo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include in Lowe’s shatter-resistant glass, a film as is taught by Condo. One would be motivated to include the film in order to further prevent shattering.
8. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowe in combination with Mochizuki and in further view of Condo.
Lowe’s teachings in combination with Mochizuki are disclosed above. With respect to claim 14, Lowe discloses in paragraph 0023, the metal card having a glass body, wherein the glass is flexible or conformable and are shatter-resistant. Although conformable or flexible glass often uses special films, either as a functional layer within laminated glass or applied onto existing glass, the combination fails to specifically teach using a film.
With respect to claim 14, Condo teaches in paragraphs 0001, 0003, and 0046, including a shatterproof film for the glass.
In view of Condo’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include in Lowe’s shatter-resistant glass, a film as is taught by Condo. One would be motivated to include the film in order to further prevent shattering.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s argument that Lowe fails to disclose a “frame metal body formed of a metal plate having a glass body insertion space on a first surface of the metal plate” is not persuasive. Lowe discloses a metal frame body formed of a metal plate having a predetermined card size (paragraph 0022). The frame includes an inner periphery spaced inward from the outer periphery, thereby defining an interior region that receives and is occupied by the glass member (paragraph 0022). This interior region corresponds to the claimed “glass body insertion space,” as it is a void formed within the metal plate structure configured to receive the glass body (figure 1 illustrates partial glass layer 102/interior glass member 104 disposed within the frame opening). Accordingly, Lowe’s frame metal body inherently includes a plate-like metal structure with a centrally defined opening region that functions as the claimed insertion space.
Conclusion
10. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allyson N. Trail whose telephone number is (571) 272-2406. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7:30AM to 4:00PM Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G. Lee, can be reached on (571) 272-2398. The fax phone number for this Group is (571) 273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [allyson.trail@uspto.gov].
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ALLYSON N TRAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
April 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights