DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-6 and 8-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al. (US 20070034700) in view of Blossom (US 20030209608) and of Narendra et al. (US 20070023532).
Re claim 1, Poidomani et al. teaches a magnetic emulator fabricated on a multilayer PCB (paragraph [0108]) where the multilayer PCB includes space for the broadcaster (64) for communicating blocks of magnetic information. FIG. 11 teaches connecting to contact pads, FIG. 8+ shows connection to the board, and FIG. 3+ and FIG. 6+ teach traces/vias/conductors/etc. going through layers. Though data is communicated, Poidomani et al. is silent to “serial” communication. Re the limitation of “fabricated on a printed circuit board using a printed circuit board fabrication technique”, the Examiner note the method of forming is not germane to the device/system and thus the process to make the device does not determine its patentability. As a product by process limitation the final product determines patentability. (“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113).
Nonetheless, the Examiner notes that the emulator is fabricated on the PCB as it is formed/ on the board, interpreted as using circuit board fabrication techniques (paragraph [0125]+ and [0133]+ which teach semiconductor manufacturing and mounting techniques, interpreted as PCB fabrication techniques).
Blossom teaches a magnetic emulator operable to serially communicate data (FIG. 5, 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 Poidomani et al. with those of Blossom.
One would have been motivated to do this to output the data as conventional magnetic stripes do, for ease of reading/processing/acceptability, for example.
Re the limitation that the “printed circuit board fabrication technique includes printing in a conductive material” again the Examiner notes that the process to make the device in a device claim does not determine patentability. As the prior art of Poidomani et al. has an emulator that is conductive material (segments/ pieces) formed/ deposited/ patterned/ etched/ coating, coating ferromagnetic cores with insulating films, conductive metal layers (copper or aluminum), sputtering and nano-sputtering, masking (photolithography), dipping, spraying, CVD, plasma etching, etc. are interpreted to read on PCB fabrication techniques. As the emulator of the prior art is made of a conductive material (segments) it is interpreted to read on the recited device limitations as the method of forming does not determine patentability of the device claims. The emulator of the prior art is made with conductive material, and thus is interpreted as at least the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art that does not depend on its method of production, as the end result is a magnetic emulator formed by conductive material using semiconductor manufacturing processes on a multiple layer PCB.
Alternatively, re the use of printing, the Examiner notes that the spraying, sputtering, etc. as discussed above (though silent to explicitly reciting printing) is seen as functionally equivalent to printing in that a material is formed on the surface in a particular arrangement/ pattern, analogous to ink-jet printing, for example, and thus it would have been obvious given such teachings, that they broadly be interpreted as a type of printing/ obviate printing.
Re the newly added limitations of a plurality of sensors coupled to the processor which is operable to determine when the card is being swiped, regardless of swipe direction and trigger the emulator a plurality of times for a given triggering, the Examiner notes the prior art to Poidomani et al./ Blossom is silent to such limitations.
Narendra et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0020]+) where multiple swipe sensors exist such as one at the end of each stripe card and sending all the data a predetermined number of times, and thus is interpreted regardless of direction, the triggering of emulation occurs a plurality of times. The recitation of “predetermined number of times” obviates the claimed “plurality of times”. Further, Narendra et al. teaches (paragraph [0023]+) wherein a first sensor causes activation and the other swipe sensor causes finishing of emulation, thus interpreted as permitting either direction of swipes, wherein the output would be able to reverse the order by having the proper order provided, regardless of which leading edge of the card is swiped, thus interpreted as reversing in that an order would be reversed because if the right edge is swiped first, the data would be oriented with respect to the right/ leading edge, and if the left edge of the card was swiped first, the data would still be corresponding to the right/ leading edge swipe, thus being reversed because a reverse swipe is going to give proper data and not reverse data.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings
One would have been motivated to do this in order to control outputting (intelligence and energy savings) instead of continually outputting data, wherein emulation stops after the other swipe sensor is activated, which is interpreted by the Examiner as either direction of swipe being able to emulate the data (reverse swiping or regular swiping) since the emulation is turned on by a first sensor and off by a second, permitting swiping in either direction, hence “regardless of swipe direction” which is routine and conventional for traditional stripe cards as well.
Re claim 2, the teachings of Poidomani et al. /Blossom have been discussed above.
Poidomani et al. /Blossom are silent to an inertial movement sensor, though Poidomani et al. teaches swipe sensors (paragraph [0081}).
Narendra et al. teaches swipe sensor 410 (paragraph [0014]) which can be a mechanical switch. Therefore, the Examiner notes that in light of being a mechanical switch, it would have been obvious to have an inertial sensor, wherein there is inertia associated with the switching of the switch, such as a mechanical switch. One would have been motivated to do this to activate the switch for sensing swiping.
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 Poidomani et al. /Blossom with those of Narendra et al.
One would have been motivated to do this to detect movement/reading.
Re claim 3, as discussed above, a mechanical sensor is interpreted as a manual/mechanical control interface.
Re claim 4, the teachings of Poidomani et al./Blossom/Narendra et al. have been discussed above. Though silent to duplicating a data block in transmission, the Examiner notes that it is well known and conventional in the art for cards to have redundant information on multiple tracks, and therefore that the emulator emulates the data block twice, such as when reading from multiple tracks (which are known to have redundant data/data blocks). Additionally, paragraph [0020]+ of Narendra et al. teaches sending the data to the stripe a predetermined number of times, and therefore at least twice is one of a plurality of solutions, given the general conditions of number of times, and one would have been motivated to send twice so as to ensure data, to send duplicate data to ensure data integrity if there is an interruption or errors, etc.
Re claim 5, Poidomani et al. teaches the emulator (broadcaster 68) can comprise a plurality of coils and (paragraph [0099]) that coils can be for different tracks, interpreted as different data blocks.
Re claim 6, the broadcaster of Poidomani et al. includes the first and second magnetic emulators (track coils). As the broadcaster can be interpreted as aligned with a plane of the card, and FIG. 5 shows 130 and 128 aligned, 128 and 130 can be interpreted as vertically aligned with respect to a plane of the card. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the positioning/placement of the emulator is an obvious matter of design variation, well within the ordinary skill in the art to produce expected results of desired emulation, because rearrangement of known parts to produce an expected result is within the ordinary skill in the art.
Re claim 8, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 9, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 10, the teachings of Poidomani et al. / Blossom have been discussed above but is silent to the processor receiving the signal from the plurality of read head detectors aligned in a width direction of the card and to a side of the emulator.
Narendra et al. teaches such limitations through processing device (FIG. 3+) receiving signals from the sensors and swipe sensors 410. Paragraph [0020]+ teaches multiple swipe sensors can exist such as one swipe sensor at each end of the stripe card 910. This is interpreted as aligned in a width direction. Paragraph [0020] also states that “in addition… swipe sensors may be on… both sides of the electronic stripe card.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to have swipe sensors at the end of each card and on both sides, such as to provide for emulating/ reading when the card is inserted backwards, for example. In such a layout, two sensors that are on same ends of the card on opposite sides of the card are therefore aligned in a width direction of the card and to a side (such as a left side/ right side) of the emulator and are to a side of the emulator such as to the left or right.
Alternatively, when the sensors are on a same face of the card (at opposite ends of the card) they are interpreted as aligned in a width direction of the card and to a side of the emulator as the claims do not require the same side, and thus being on sides of the emulator reads on read head detectors on a side of the emulator.
The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require a same side, but the sensors being on a side (as opposed to interrupting on being in the middle), and that side can be above, below, left, right, or opposite side of the card.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for intelligent/ energy saving means for activation of the emulator (for starting and stopping activation and for allowing reading when inserted backwards), for interleaving, etc.
Re claim 11, though silent to the first track including a credit card number, the Examiner notes that it is well known and conventional that first data tracks include account number as part of the financial information of the transaction, such as for compliance with recognized standards.
Re claim 12, Poidomani et al. teaches a battery (col 5, line 35+) and a processor (abstract+), read head detector (sensor 70), and second magnetic emulators (for each tracks).
Re claim 13, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 14, the limitations have been discussed above via track 1 and track 2 coils interpreted as first and second emulators.
Re claim 15, Poidomani et al. teaches alternative embodiments use three or more tracks (paragraph [0080]). At the time the invention was made, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use more coils for more tracks (more magnetic emulators) in order to emulate more data tracks, such as for storage or design variation, or reader compatibility. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the mere duplicating of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art as discussed above. The use of additional emulators would produce expected results of more track data emulation, and Poidomani et al. teaches multiple emulators via Sheet 5 of 18 which shows track 1, track 2, coils, therefore providing a third emulator to provide a third data track (for example) would be applying known techniques to provide expected results of track emulation when additional track emulation is desired.
Re claims 16-17, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 18, the limitations have been discussed above, and Poidomani et al. teaches a button (28).
Re claim 19-20, the limitations have been discussed above, and Poidomani et al. teaches a display (58).
Re claims 21-22, a flexible PCB has been discussed above (abstract+) and a coil has been discussed above (see paragraph [0009] +).
Re claim 23, metal has been discussed above re claim 1.
Re claim 24, the examiner notes that conductive metal has been discussed above re claim 1, and is interpreted to read on conductive segments.
Re claim 25-26, Poidomani et al. teaches a flexible PCB (abstract) and a multilayer board (paragraph [0108]). Further, the use of flexible multilayer PCB for computing/ electronic devices is well known and accepted for ease of manufacturing and reliability.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./Blossom/ Narendra et al., as discussed above, in view of Wallerstein (US 5955961).
The teachings of Poidomani et al. /Blossom et al./ Narendra et al. have been discussed above.
Poidomani et al. /Blossom/ Narendra et al. is silent to emulating twice.
Wallerstein teaches emulating at least twice/repeating the emulation (col 7, lines 30+).
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 Poidomani et al./Blossom/ Henson/ Narendra et al. with those of Wallerstein.
One would have been motivated to do this in order for the reading device to have sufficient opportunity to read the card/data sequence but providing redundant data emulation.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./Blossom/ Narendra et al., as discussed above, in view of Nordentoft et al. (US 20050194452).
The teachings of Poidomani et al. /Blossom/ Narendra et al. have been discussed above.
Poidomani et al. /Blossom/ Narendra et al. are silent to vertical staggering.
Nordentoft et al. teaches a card comprising a magnetic emulator operable to output a data block (FIG. 5), comprising first and second emulators that are vertically staggered as per FIG. 5 which shows a top and a bottom emulator spaced vertically, as the emulators are at different positions, to output card track data. This vertical spacing/ offset from each other is interpreted as staggered as they are not on top of each other, for example, and thus are vertically staggered with respect to the major plane of the card because they are not on top of each other on a plane of the card but vertically staggered as shown in FIG. 5. The emulators of FIG. 5 are thus vertically staggered with respect to a main plane of the card because they are at different vertical (y) positions in the x-y plane.
Additionally/ alternatively it would have been obvious to have the emulators at different depths (different depths vertically in the major plane of the card) to permit the individually inducible nature of each emulator (paragraph [0070]+), as changing depths of the emulators would have been one of a plurality of solutions available to one of ordinary skill in the art so that the wiring/ vias connecting to the circuit 20 does not touch other emulator windings (vertical staggered with respect to the major plane of the card). Such an arrangement of the emulators are varying depths in the major card plane would be vertical staggering in the depth (z) direction with respect to the major plane.
Additionally/ alternatively, merely changing an orientation/ position of the emulators would have been obvious as a matter of system constraints, such as desiring to have a particular circuit layout, for example, as staggering does not appear to teach a functional difference, not met by the prior art. Even further, the winding on the left of the top and bottom emulators in FIG. 5 of Nordentoft et al. appear vertically staggered in that the windings are not aligned on the left side, and thus the emulators are broadly interpreted as vertically staggered in that the active part of the emulators are staggered, for example.
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 Poidomani et al. /Blossom with those of Nordentoft et al.
One would have been motivated to do this for placement of the emulators in order to generate the desired signals upon activation and for connectivity purposes. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the positioning/placement of the emulator is an obvious matter of design variation, well within the ordinary skill in the art to produce expected results of desired emulation, because rearrangement of known parts to produce an expected result is within the ordinary skill in the art. Further, staggering can ensure that the windings do not touch each other when connecting to the circuit 20.
Re claim 15, the teachings of Poidomani et al. / Blossom/ Narendra et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the third emulator.
Nordentoft et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 5, 3 coils).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for emulating different data independently.
Claims 10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al. /Blossom/ Narendra et al., as discussed above, in view of Domsten et al. (US 20100265037).
Re claim 10, the teachings of Poidomani et al. / Blossom/ Narendra et al. have been discussed above but is silent to explicitly reciting the processor receiving the signal from the plurality of read head detectors aligned in a width direction of the card and to a side of the emulator.
Domsten et al. teaches (paragraph [0087]+) that more than one sweep detector can be provided, such as at each end section of the readout area (40). The Examiner has interpreted each end section to be the end sections of the transducers/emulators. As such, the detectors are interpreted as aligned in a width direction and to a side (to an end side).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to control emulation.
Re claim 14, the limitations have been discussed above via track 1 and track 2 coils interpreted as first and second emulators.
Re claim 15, Poidomani et al. teaches alternative embodiments use three or more tracks (paragraph [0080]). At the time the invention was made, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use more coils for more tracks (more magnetic emulators) in order to emulate more data tracks, such as for storage or design variation, or reader compatibility. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the mere duplicating of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art as discussed above. The use of additional emulators would produce expected results of more track data emulation, and Poidomani et al. teaches multiple emulators via Sheet 5 of 18 which shows track 1, track 2, coils, therefore providing a third emulator to provide a third data track (for example) would be applying known techniques to provide expected results of track emulation when additional track emulation is desired.
Re claims 16-17, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 18, the limitations have been discussed above, and Poidomani et al. teaches a button (28).
Re claim 19-20, the limitations have been discussed above, and Poidomani et al. teaches a display (58).
Claims 1-6 and 8-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al. (US 20070034700) in view of Blossom (US 20030209608) and Narendra et al. (US 20070023532), as discussed above, in view of Nair et al. (US 5362952).
Re claim 1, Poidomani et al. teaches a magnetic emulator fabricated on a multilayer PCB (paragraph [0108]) where the multilayer PCB includes space for the broadcaster (64) for communicating blocks of magnetic information. FIG. 11 teaches connecting to contact pads, FIG. 8+ shows connection to the board, and FIG. 3+ and FIG. 6+ teach traces/vias/conductors/etc. going through layers. Though data is communicated, Poidomani et al. is silent to “serial” communication. Re the limitation of “fabricated on a printed circuit board using a printed circuit board fabrication technique”, the Examiner note the method of forming is not germane to the device/system and thus the process to make the device does not determine its patentability. As a product by process limitation the final product determines patentability. (“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113).
Nonetheless, the Examiner notes that the emulator is fabricated on the PCB as it is formed/ on the board, interpreted as using circuit board fabrication techniques (paragraph [0125]+ and [0133]+ which teach semiconductor manufacturing and mounting techniques, interpreted as PCB fabrication techniques).
Blossom teaches a magnetic emulator operable to serially communicate data (FIG. 5, 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 Poidomani et al. with those of Blossom.
One would have been motivated to do this to output the data as conventional magnetic stripes do, for ease of reading/processing/acceptability, for example.
Re the limitation that the “printed circuit board fabrication technique includes printing in a conductive material” again the Examiner notes that the process to make the device in a device claim does not determine patentability. As the prior art of Poidomani et al. has an emulator that is conductive material (segments/ pieces) formed/ deposited/ patterned/ etched/ coating, coating ferromagnetic cores with insulating films, conductive metal layers (copper or aluminum), sputtering and nano-sputtering, masking (photolithography), dipping, spraying, CVD, plasma etching, etc. are interpreted to read on PCB fabrication techniques. As the emulator of the prior art is made of a conductive material (segments) it is interpreted to read on the recited device limitations as the method of forming does not determine patentability of the device claims. The emulator of the prior art is made with conductive material, and thus is interpreted as at least the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art that does not depend on its method of production, as the end result is a magnetic emulator formed by conductive material using semiconductor manufacturing processes on a multiple layer PCB.
Alternatively, re the use of printing, the Examiner notes that the spraying, sputtering, etc. as discussed above (though silent to explicitly reciting printing) is seen as functionally equivalent to printing in that a material is formed on the surface in a particular arrangement/ pattern, analogous to ink-jet printing, for example, and thus it would have been obvious given such teachings, that they broadly be interpreted as a type of printing/ obviate printing.
Re the newly added limitations of a plurality of sensors coupled to the processor which is operable to determine the direction the card is being swiped, the processor being operable to reverse the order to the serial communication based on the determined swipe direction, the Examiner notes the prior art to Poidomani et al./ Blossom is silent to such limitations.
Narendra et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0023]+) wherein a first sensor causes activation and the other swipe sensor causes finishing of emulation.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings
One would have been motivated to do this in order to control outputting (intelligence and energy savings) instead of continually outputting data, wherein emulation stops after the other swipe sensor is activated, which is interpreted by the Examiner as either direction of swipe being able to emulate the data (reverse swiping or regular swiping) since the emulation is turned on by a first sensor and off by a second, permitting swiping in either direction.
Even further, Nair et al. teaches such limtaitons at step 242+ wherein it is determined if the card is swiped backwards or forward by looking at the end sentinel occurring first and decoding signals that are reverse swiped based on looking at the sentinels, thus teaching reversing the output of the data to be proper, such teachings being at the reader processing as opposed to the card processing.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings
One would have been motivated to do this in order to control outputting to handle reverse swipes.
Re claim 2, the teachings of Poidomani et al. /Blossom have been discussed above.
Poidomani et al. /Blossom are silent to an inertial movement sensor, though Poidomani et al. teaches swipe sensors (paragraph [0081}).
Narendra et al. teaches swipe sensor 410 (paragraph [0014]) which can be a mechanical switch. Therefore, the Examiner notes that in light of being a mechanical switch, it would have been obvious to have an inertial sensor, wherein there is inertia associated with the switching of the switch, such as a mechanical switch. One would have been motivated to do this to activate the switch for sensing swiping.
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 Poidomani et al. /Blossom with those of Narendra et al.
One would have been motivated to do this to detect movement/reading.
Re claim 3, as discussed above, a mechanical sensor is interpreted as a manual/mechanical control interface.
Re claim 4, the teachings of Poidomani et al./Blossom/Narendra et al. have been discussed above. Though silent to duplicating a data block in transmission, the Examiner notes that it is well known and conventional in the art for cards to have redundant information on multiple tracks, and therefore that the emulator emulates the data block twice, such as when reading from multiple tracks (which are known to have redundant data/data blocks). Additionally, paragraph [0020]+ of Narendra et al. teaches sending the data to the stripe a predetermined number of times, and therefore at least twice is one of a plurality of solutions, given the general conditions of number of times, and one would have been motivated to send twice so as to ensure data, to send duplicate data to ensure data integrity if there is an interruption or errors, etc.
Re claim 5, Poidomani et al. teaches the emulator (broadcaster 68) can comprise a plurality of coils and (paragraph [0099]) that coils can be for different tracks, interpreted as different data blocks.
Re claim 6, the broadcaster of Poidomani et al. includes the first and second magnetic emulators (track coils). As the broadcaster can be interpreted as aligned with a plane of the card, and FIG. 5 shows 130 and 128 aligned, 128 and 130 can be interpreted as vertically aligned with respect to a plane of the card. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the positioning/placement of the emulator is an obvious matter of design variation, well within the ordinary skill in the art to produce expected results of desired emulation, because rearrangement of known parts to produce an expected result is within the ordinary skill in the art.
Re claim 8, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 9, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 10, the teachings of Poidomani et al. / Blossom have been discussed above but is silent to the processor receiving the signal from the plurality of read head detectors aligned in a width direction of the card and to a side of the emulator.
Narendra et al. teaches such limitations through processing device (FIG. 3+) receiving signals from the sensors and swipe sensors 410. Paragraph [0020]+ teaches multiple swipe sensors can exist such as one swipe sensor at each end of the stripe card 910. This is interpreted as aligned in a width direction. Paragraph [0020] also states that “in addition… swipe sensors may be on… both sides of the electronic stripe card.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to have swipe sensors at the end of each card and on both sides, such as to provide for emulating/ reading when the card is inserted backwards, for example. In such a layout, two sensors that are on same ends of the card on opposite sides of the card are therefore aligned in a width direction of the card and to a side (such as a left side/ right side) of the emulator and are to a side of the emulator such as to the left or right.
Alternatively, when the sensors are on a same face of the card (at opposite ends of the card) they are interpreted as aligned in a width direction of the card and to a side of the emulator as the claims do not require the same side, and thus being on sides of the emulator reads on read head detectors on a side of the emulator.
The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require a same side, but the sensors being on a side (as opposed to interrupting on being in the middle), and that side can be above, below, left, right, or opposite side of the card.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for intelligent/ energy saving means for activation of the emulator (for starting and stopping activation and for allowing reading when inserted backwards), for interleaving, etc.
Re claim 11, though silent to the first track including a credit card number, the Examiner notes that it is well known and conventional that first data tracks include account number as part of the financial information of the transaction, such as for compliance with recognized standards.
Re claim 12, Poidomani et al. teaches a battery (col 5, line 35+) and a processor (abstract+), read head detector (sensor 70), and second magnetic emulators (for each tracks).
Re claim 13, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 14, the limitations have been discussed above via track 1 and track 2 coils interpreted as first and second emulators.
Re claim 15, Poidomani et al. teaches alternative embodiments use three or more tracks (paragraph [0080]). At the time the invention was made, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use more coils for more tracks (more magnetic emulators) in order to emulate more data tracks, such as for storage or design variation, or reader compatibility. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the mere duplicating of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art as discussed above. The use of additional emulators would produce expected results of more track data emulation, and Poidomani et al. teaches multiple emulators via Sheet 5 of 18 which shows track 1, track 2, coils, therefore providing a third emulator to provide a third data track (for example) would be applying known techniques to provide expected results of track emulation when additional track emulation is desired.
Re claims 16-17, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 18, the limitations have been discussed above, and Poidomani et al. teaches a button (28).
Re claim 19-20, the limitations have been discussed above, and Poidomani et al. teaches a display (58).
Re claims 21-22, a flexible PCB has been discussed above (abstract+) and a coil has been discussed above (see paragraph [0009] +).
Re claim 23, metal has been discussed above re claim 1.
Re claim 24, the examiner notes that conductive metal has been discussed above re claim 1, and is interpreted to read on conductive segments.
Re claim 25-26, Poidomani et al. teaches a flexible PCB (abstract) and a multilayer board (paragraph [0108]). Further, the use of flexible multilayer PCB for computing/ electronic devices is well known and accepted for ease of manufacturing and reliability.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./Blossom/ Narendra et al./ Nair et al., as discussed above, in view of Wallerstein (US 5955961).
The teachings of Poidomani et al. /Blossom et al./ Narendra et al./ Nair et al. have been discussed above.
Poidomani et al. /Blossom/ Narendra et al./ Nair et al. is silent to emulating twice.
Wallerstein teaches emulating at least twice/repeating the emulation (col 7, lines 30+).
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 Poidomani et al./Blossom/ Henson/ Narendra et al./ Nair et al. with those of Wallerstein.
One would have been motivated to do this in order for the reading device to have sufficient opportunity to read the card/data sequence but providing redundant data emulation.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./Blossom/ Narendra et al./ Nair et al., as discussed above, in view of Nordentoft et al. (US 20050194452).
The teachings of Poidomani et al. /Blossom/ Narendra et al./ Nair et al. have been discussed above.
Poidomani et al. /Blossom/ Narendra et al./ Nair et al. are silent to vertical staggering.
Nordentoft et al. teaches a card comprising a magnetic emulator operable to output a data block (FIG. 5), comprising first and second emulators that are vertically staggered as per FIG. 5 which shows a top and a bottom emulator spaced vertically, as the emulators are at different positions, to output card track data. This vertical spacing/ offset from each other is interpreted as staggered as they are not on top of each other, for example, and thus are vertically staggered with respect to the major plane of the card because they are not on top of each other on a plane of the card but vertically staggered as shown in FIG. 5. The emulators of FIG. 5 are thus vertically staggered with respect to a main plane of the card because they are at different vertical (y) positions in the x-y plane.
Additionally/ alternatively it would have been obvious to have the emulators at different depths (different depths vertically in the major plane of the card) to permit the individually inducible nature of each emulator (paragraph [0070]+), as changing depths of the emulators would have been one of a plurality of solutions available to one of ordinary skill in the art so that the wiring/ vias connecting to the circuit 20 does not touch other emulator windings (vertical staggered with respect to the major plane of the card). Such an arrangement of the emulators are varying depths in the major card plane would be vertical staggering in the depth (z) direction with respect to the major plane.
Additionally/ alternatively, merely changing an orientation/ position of the emulators would have been obvious as a matter of system constraints, such as desiring to have a particular circuit layout, for example, as staggering does not appear to teach a functional difference, not met by the prior art. Even further, the winding on the left of the top and bottom emulators in FIG. 5 of Nordentoft et al. appear vertically staggered in that the windings are not aligned on the left side, and thus the emulators are broadly interpreted as vertically staggered in that the active part of the emulators are staggered, for example.
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 Poidomani et al. /Blossom with those of Nordentoft et al.
One would have been motivated to do this for placement of the emulators in order to generate the desired signals upon activation and for connectivity purposes. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the positioning/placement of the emulator is an obvious matter of design variation, well within the ordinary skill in the art to produce expected results of desired emulation, because rearrangement of known parts to produce an expected result is within the ordinary skill in the art. Further, staggering can ensure that the windings do not touch each other when connecting to the circuit 20.
Re claim 15, the teachings of Poidomani et al. / Blossom/ Narendra et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the third emulator.
Nordentoft et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 5, 3 coils).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for emulating different data independently.
Claims 10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al. /Blossom/ Narendra et al./ Nair et al., as discussed above, in view of Domsten et al. (US 20100265037).
Re claim 10, the teachings of Poidomani et al. / Blossom/ Narendra et al./ Nair et al. have been discussed above but is silent to explicitly reciting the processor receiving the signal from the plurality of read head detectors aligned in a width direction of the card and to a side of the emulator.
Domsten et al. teaches (paragraph [0087]+) that more than one sweep detector can be provided, such as at each end section of the readout area (40). The Examiner has interpreted each end section to be the end sections of the transducers/emulators. As such, the detectors are interpreted as aligned in a width direction and to a side (to an end side).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to control emulation.
Re claim 14, the limitations have been discussed above via track 1 and track 2 coils interpreted as first and second emulators.
Re claim 15, Poidomani et al. teaches alternative embodiments use three or more tracks (paragraph [0080]). At the time the invention was made, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use more coils for more tracks (more magnetic emulators) in order to emulate more data tracks, such as for storage or design variation, or reader compatibility. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the mere duplicating of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art as discussed above. The use of additional emulators would produce expected results of more track data emulation, and Poidomani et al. teaches multiple emulators via Sheet 5 of 18 which shows track 1, track 2, coils, therefore providing a third emulator to provide a third data track (for example) would be applying known techniques to provide expected results of track emulation when additional track emulation is desired.
Re claims 16-17, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 18, the limitations have been discussed above, and Poidomani et al. teaches a button (28).
Re claim 19-20, the limitations have been discussed above, and Poidomani et al. teaches a display (58).
Response to Arguments
The Examiner notes that the prior art teaches emulating a plurality of times and the use of sensors that permit the card to be swiped in either direction, which is also consistent with traditional magnetic card readers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (US 20060289202) which shows through holes and pads in a multilayer PCB (FIG. 1+).
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.
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 2887 .