The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nordentoft et al. (US 20050194452) in view of Brady et al. (US 20080121726) and Li et al. (US 2009152365).
Re claim 1, Nordentoft et al. teaches first and second magnetic emulators operable of communicating first and second tracks of magnetic stripe card information to a reader without a magnetic stripe (FIG. 5, wherein current is applied to the cores with the windings on them, which results in the generation of magnetic fields to emulate a magnetic stripe card).
Nordentoft et al. is silent to the first emulator configured to transmit an encrypted security code during a transaction that is generated based on a unique cryptographic algorithm stored on the card with a pseudorandom number generator associated with an external verification system and that the second emulator transmits static data encoded on the card (not the dynamic security code).
Brady et al. teaches in paragraph [0027]+ that coils in a card in an emulator are used and paragraph [0024]+ teaches a processor with memory and algorithm to compute a verification code (dynamically generated) using an algorithm such as a pseudo-random number generator and [0021]+ teaches the external system/ server synchronization. Processor 202 is based on a security algorithm, wherein the use of a “cryptographic” algorithms is an obvious expedient for security, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Brady et al. teaches Track 1 or Track 2 has the coils for the dynamic security code (paragraph [0027]+). This is interpreted to obviate only one track emulator communicating the dynamic security code. Brady et al. teaches no stripe (paragraph [0022]+ with the coils operable to communicate to the reader directly).
Li et al. at FIG. 2 teaches different track emulators with differing bpi to be adjusted for standards (paragraph [0023]+), wherein there is dynamic magnetic bits on various tracks (FIG> 2+) which obviates dynamic information on some tracks and static information permanently encoded as well (known in the art as permanently encoded).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to have improved security and capabilities by having a combination of dynamic and static data with different coercivities for permanent and dynamic data reading.
Re claim 2, the card has a long and short side (as is conventional). The emulators can be broadly interpreted as horizontally staggered as the windings can be interpreted as staggered (FIG. 5+ shows the windings are not aligned and thus can be interpreted as staggered since the top coil is further to the left and the bottom coils are further to the right).
Re claim 3, Nordentoft et al. teaches emulators (FIG. 5). Each emulator has a surface area that is operable to communicate first and second information to the reader, as discussed above. The Examiner notes that the physical location of the tracks being emulated is interpreted to read upon the stripe region of the area, wherein the first and second track emulators are different areas from each other. Re paragraph [0070]+, Nordentoft teaches that F2F format is used to present data to the credit card reader and that conventional 210 bits/inch is used (track one format). Though silent, the Examiner notes that the track 2 conventional format is 75 bits/inch and Nordentoft et al. teaches the coils of the card of the present invention is to emit data signals in such F2F format. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to therefore have different format of data communicated. Further, Li et al. teaches 210bpi and 75bpi (paragraph [00230]+) as industry standards. The Examiner notes at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have different surface areas, since a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component which is recognized as being with the ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)), as doing so would not produce expected results, and especially given different data densities would be motivated by the amount of data in the design.
Alternatively, in order to have the varying bit densities to mimic conventional track densities between track one and two, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have different surfaces areas in the magnetic stripe region of the card for the different track emulators, due to their different densities of data being communicated, wherein the total surface area of each emulator can be interpreted as the surface area of the coil and the core, wherein a higher data bit track would have more surface area due to more turns which creates more surface area of the track emulator compared to the track emulator of lower density. Thus, it would have been obvious to try to have different surfaces areas of the emulators to yield different data densities in order to comply with the track 1 and track 2 bpi standards for acceptance and successful reading/ processing by readers.
Re claim 4, though silent to the specific types of information, the Examiner notes that the structure of the prior art is capable of communicating different types of information. As dynamic information is taught, specific types of information are intpereted as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, based on system constraints, intended use, as the type of non-functional descriptive material is able to be communicated by the prior art structure.
Re claim 5, Nordentoft et al. teaches a button (paragraph [0076]).
Re claims 6-7, a button has been taught above, and Brady et al. teaches a display 216, which is an obvious expedient for displaying data and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, for such expected results.
Re claim 8, Nordentoft et al. teaches a rechargeable battery (paragraph [0052]).
Re claim 9, the first emulator is interpreted as including wires since it is interconnected to other devices (FIG. 5, such as 12, 14, 16, and 18 where connectivity by wires is an obvious expedient for electrical connections, and would include at least 2 wires based on the arrangement as shown, which are part of the emulator. Wires are interpreted as a conductive pathway between elements/sections of the card, and can include wires, traces, conductive paths, etc.
Re claim 10, the Examiner notes that track 1 and 2 data densities are different, as known in the art, to comply with industry standards (acceptance). Paragraph [0070] + teaches 3 transducer coils for the 3 strips of a conventional card. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the different bit densities to correspond to the tracks of conventional stripe cards for acceptance/readability, for example, as discussed above re claim 3.
Re claim 11, a button and processor are taught (paragraph [0076] and 16).
Re claim 14, though silent to explicitly reciting an IC chip, Nordentoft et al. teaches a smart chip, processor (FIG. 5). This is broadly interpreted to include an IC chip. Brady et al. teaches a processor (abstract+) and Li et al. teaches an ASIC 410.
Re claim 16, paragraph [0062] + and FIG. 5+ teaches a microcontroller chip and a processor, broadly interpreted as an IC chip and a processor/processing means.
Re claim 17, though silent to first and second tracks including the card number, the Examiner notes it is well known and conventional in the art for the first and second tracks to include duplicate information, such as the account number. One would have been motivated to do so to comply with reading/card standards (such as ISO/IEC).
Re claims 12 and 17-18, though silent, the Examiner notes that as track 1 and track 2 of conventional credit cards are developed differently (written with different code), while data can be redundant track to track (such as PAN, discretionary data, expiration date, etc.,), as it is formatted differently, it can be interpreted as first and second data being different, as in terms of characters/coding it is represented differently. Additionally, there is different data per tracks such as name (track 1), different start sentinel characters and separators, field separators, etc., Therefore, first additional data can be interpreted as the name, and the second additional data can be interpreted as the expiration date, etc. Further, even redundant data on tracks can be interpreted as different additional information as it’s encoded/represented differently. Further, as the tracks are known to be encoded differently/written with different codes (re claim 12) this is interpreted to meet the recited claim limitations of different number of states for characters of different tracks due to differing data/ different programming/ encoding and different code, for example.
Re claims 17-18, as discussed above, the card number is redundantly stored on each track, and therefore the different security codes/additional different data on each track can be interpreted as different data per track such as name (track one only) and different characters for the field separator and start sentinels as known in the art for traditional tracks.
Alternatively, if different security codes are merely interpreted as the different data elements that are communicated, re claim 1 and 17-18, the different data elements such as expiration, name, service code, format codes, etc. are operable to be communicated by the first and second emulators. Re claim 17, payment account number is known to be redundant per track 1 and 2 as known in the art to comply with standards. Re claim 18, payment card is part of track 1 data and track 2 data as known in the art. Track 1 additional data can be interpreted as one of the name, service code, discretionary data, start sentinel, expiration date, etc. The track 2 additional data can be one of the start sentinel, discretionary data, expiration date, separator, etc. not chosen as track 1 additional data. Therefore, because there is a plurality of available data on each track, a first additional data can be chosen as different to second additional data either by the fact that it is not stored at all on track 2 or by the fact that it is not the same data chosen as the additional data of track one (even if it is stored on both tracks, as the claims do not recite that the data is not stored on both tracks). The storage of redundant and different data on different tracks is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to comply with standards and common practice. The card of the prior art is operable to store such data.
Re claim 19, Nordentoft et al. teaches a battery (paragraph [0026]+, button (paragraph [0042]+) and a processor (paragraph [0061]+ element 16).
Re claim 20, Brady et al. teaches a display 216, which is an obvious expedient for displaying data and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, for such expected results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nordentoft et al./Brady et al./ Li et al., as discussed above, in view of Hathaway et al. (US 20090048971).
The teachings of Nordentoft et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al. have been discussed above.
Nordentoft et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al. is silent to dynamic payment numbers and dynamic codes.
Hathaway et al. teaches a dynamic payment number and dynamic code being displayed (FIG. 5 and abstract).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this for security, by providing a code with the account number. It would have been obvious that such data is on a track so as to be processed with conventional readers/standards.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nordentoft et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al., as discussed above, in view of Lewis et al. (US 20070017975).
Re claim 13, the teachings of Nordentoft et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al. have been discussed above.
Nordentoft et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al. is silent to the first track including longitudinal redundancy check information.
Lewis et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0040]).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nordentoft et al./ Degen et al. with those of Lewis et al.
One would have been motivated to do this to comply with standards for magnetic stripe/track data storage.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nordentoft et al./ Brady et al./Li et al., as discussed above, in view of Doughty et al. (US 20040133787).
Re claims 14-16, the teachings of Nordentoft et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al. have been discussed above.
Nordentoft et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al. is silent to an “IC chip”/RFID antenna/Processor and “IC chip”.
Doughty et al. teaches contactless interface 322 for wireless communication. Though silent to an RFID antenna, RFID as a form of contactless communication is an obvious expedient for range. Doughty et al. teaches an IC chip with a processor (paragraph [0040] which teaches that the processor 314 may include a smart card processor and an ASIC.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nordentoft et al. with those of Doughty et al.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to have a plurality of means to communicate data for versatility and convenience.
Re claims 19-20
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nordentoft et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al., as discussed above, in view of Dixon et al. (US 20080203151).
Re claim 17-18, the teachings of Nordentoft et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al. have been discussed above.
Nordentoft et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al. is silent to first and second tracks storing the account and additional (different information).
Dixon et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 6).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nordentoft et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al. with those of Dixon.
The Examiner notes that redundant data stored on different tracks does not preclude it from being different security codes. Because a plurality of data (security codes) are operable to be communicated, communicating two different data from two different track/emulators reads on such limitations.
One would have been motivated to do this to comply with current standards.
Claims 1, 3, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doughty et al., as discussed above, in view of Brady et al./ Li et al., as discussed above.
Re claims 1, 3, 14 and 16, the teachings of Doughty et al. have been discussed above. Doughty et al. teaches a plurality of emulators (Re FIG. 5B+ and paragraph [0051] +). Since they are located non-overlapping, they have a different surface area (covered).
Doughty et al. teaches 3 tracks of magnetic data cells to be programmed, but is silent to them communicating without a stripe and the security code limitations and that the second emulator transmits static information encoded on the card and not the security code (dynamic).
Brady et al./ Li et al. teaches such limitations as discussed above.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Doughty et al. with those of Nordentoft et al./ Brady et al.
One would have been motivated to do this to convey different magnetic tracks (emulate) with security as known in the art.
The limitations regarding different areas of the densities has been previously discussed in the claim 3 rejection above.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al. (US 20070034700) in view of Brady et al./ Li et al., as discussed above.
Re claim 1, Poidomani et al. teaches a card with first and second magnetic emulators to communicate stripe information to a reader (FIG. 5a and track 1 and 2 emulators 128 and 130 of element 68 which is not a stripe).
Poidomani et al. is silent to specifically reciting “security codes” limitations as recited from the second emulator being different than the first emulator and also the information (dynamic vs static/ permanently encoded).
Brady et al./ Li et al. teaches such limitations, as discussed above.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this for security to include security codes as part of transaction information, as known in the art, for security.
Re claim 3, The teachings of Poidomani et al. have been discussed above. Poidomani et al. teaches conventional bit density of track 1 and 2 of 210 and 75 (paragraph [0008] +) but is silent to different surface areas of the track emulators. However, the Examiner notes that the surface area of different bit density track areas (core and total winding) would have been obvious to be different such as to accommodate the different bit density of the different tracks to comply with standards. Therefore, the surface areas are different at least spatially and also by their different construction (such as due to bit density). Li et al. also teaches different densities as discussed above. Re the limitations of the different surface areas and densities, this has been discussed above re the first rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 5, a button is taught (paragraph [0066]).
Re claim 6, a display (58) is taught.
Re claim 7, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 8, the abstract teaches a rechargeable battery.
Re claim 11, a processor (FIG. 3) and a button (paragraph [0066]) are taught.
Re claim 14, FIG. 3+ is interpreted to show an IC chip.
Re claim 16, a processor and IC chip are shown (FIG. 3+).
Re claims 19-20, the limitations have been discussed above (Poidomani teaches a button at 27, a processor 44, battery 56, display 58).
Re claim 9, though silent to wires, the Examiner notes that FIG. 5a+ teaches connectivity between emulators. Paragraph [0031] + teaches wires for connecting the processor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the emulators have wires for connectivity, as known in the art for connecting devices. Wires are interpreted as a conductive pathway between elements/sections of the card and are interpreted as part of the emulator, and could include wires, traces, and conductive paths, as part of the emulator.
Re claims 12 and 17-18, though silent, the Examiner notes that as track 1 and track 2 of conventional credit cards are developed differently (written with different code), while data is redundant (such as PAN), and as it is formatted differently, it can be interpreted as first and second data being different, as in terms of characters/coding it is represented differently. Therefore, first additional data can be interpreted as the name, and the second additional data can be interpreted as the expiration date. Further, even redundant data on tracks can be interpreted as different additional information as it’s encoded/represented differently. Further, as the tracks are known to be encoded differently/written with different codes (re claim 12) this is interpreted to meet the recited claim limitations.
Re claim 15, paragraph [0087] teaches an RF port. Though silent to an antenna, it would have been obvious to include an antenna as part of providing RF communication ability.
Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al., as discussed above, in view of Nordentoft et al., as discussed above.
Re claim 2, the teachings of Poidomani et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al. have been discussed above but are silent to staggering of coils.
Nordentoft et al. teaches staggering of the emulators as discussed above.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to stagger the emulators such as for connectivity to the other elements of the card, as per Nordentoft et al. (FIG. 5 showing staggering), to reduce overlapping, for spacing, etc.
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al., as discussed above, in view of Hathaway et al., as discussed above.
Re claim 4 the teachings of Poidomani et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al. have been discussed above but are silent to displaying payment numbers and codes.
Re claim 4, Hathaway et al. teaches a dynamic payment number and dynamic code being displayed (FIG. 5 and abstract).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Poidomani et al./ Brady et al./ Li et al. with those of Hathaway et al.
One would have been motivated to do this for security, by providing a code with the account number. It would have been obvious that such data is on a track so as to be processed with conventional readers/standards.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the new rejections above.
The Examiner notes that the track 1 and track 2 data of a credit card are interpreted to read on the limitations of the first and second emulators being able to communicate different data during a transaction and different bpi with different tracks, wherein such different BPI and amount of data in the design obviate different surface areas for such expected results of data amounts, security, design variation, cost, etc.. Track emulators are taught in the prior art above. The data communicated by the track emulators is interpreted to include different security codes, as known in the art, as “security codes” as interpreted by the Examiner to include traditional track data. For example, as support, paragraph [0007]+ of US 20080169351 teaches that track 1 format and track 2 format includes different security codes: “Format B: Start sentinel--one character (generally `%`), Format code="B"--one character (alpha only), Primary account number--up to 19 characters, Field Separator--one character (generally "A"), Name--two to 26 characters, Field Separator--one character (generally ` `), Expiration date--four characters, Service code--three characters, Discretionary data--may include Pin Verification Key Indicator (PVKI, 1 character), Pin Verification Value (PVV, 4 characters), Card Verification Value or Card Verification Code (CVV or CVK, 3 characters), End sentinel--one character (generally `?`) and Longitudinal redundancy check (LRC)--one character, LRC is a form of computed check character. [0008] The format for track two, developed by the banking industry (ABA), is as follows: Start sentinel--one character (generally `;`), Primary account number--up to 19 chars, Separator--one char (generally `=`), Expiration date--four characters, Service code--three characters, Discretionary data--as in track one and End sentinel--one character (generally `?`), LRC--one character.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Examiner notes that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_stripe_card#:~:text=Tracks%20one%20and%20three%20are,(2.95%20bits%20per%20mm) teaches the conventional information and bpi for magnetic stripe cards that the emulators are mimicking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-9pm.
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, Steve Paik can be reached on 5712722404. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL I WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876