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 § 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 1-15 and 17-19 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. The limitations that the first and second emulators on different card surfaces communicate different magnetic stripe data independently and simultaneously and are exclusively associated with its respective display are not supported by the specification to show possession. While the specification [0012] teaches more than one display on a card with its own controller and clock, the specification does not support the displays on different surfaces of the card to communicate different magnetic stripe track data independently and simultaneously (each emulator exclusively associated with its respective display).
Appropriate correction is requested.
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 1-8, 10-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zellner et al. (US 20060091223) in view of Brady et al. (US 20080121726), Hathaway et al. (US 20090048971), and Peled (US 20090309701).
Re claim 1, Zellner et al. teaches:
a first display (110) located on a first surface of said card;
a second display (160) located on a second surface of said card;
a first magnetic emulator (encoder 120) operable to communicate first magnetic stripe track data including at least a portion of magnetic stripe track data without using a magnetic stripe, wherein at least a portion of said first magnetic stripe data is displayed on said first display (FIG. 1A+, and FIG. 2A+ wherein a name, account number, expiration date, etc. is displayed on a first front display meant to mimic a traditional card).
Zellner et al. teaches a dynamic encoder 120, but not specifically a first and second encoders/ emulators.
However, Zellner et al. teaches displaying on the second display 160, second magnetic stripe data, via a signature/ credit card code/ issuer number. The credit card code displayed, is meant to mimic a traditional rear face of a credit card, and thus is interpreted as a CVV/ security/ PIN type code.
Emulator 120 is not a stripe as it is an emulator/encoder. The emulator communicates magnetic stripe data without using a stripe as the encoder does not include a stripe to communicate and the claim does not recite that the encoder does not communicate data to a stripe. Thus, Though Zellner et al. teaches first magnetic stripe data including a portion of magnetic stripe track data (account/ name/ expiration/ etc.) and second magnetic stripe data (code/ signature/ phone number) on first and second displays, respectively, on first and second card surfaces as recited, Zellner et al. is silent to a second magnetic emulator operable to communicate second magnetic stripe data without using a magnetic stripe. The Examiner notes that first and second tracks are interpreted to include duplicate data as known in the art.
Brady et al. provides a security enhancement by displaying a dynamically updated card verification code that is displayed on display 216 on a rear surface. This self-programming region functions as a magnetic emulator (paragraph [0041]).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings. One would have been motivated to combine the teachings to have separate emulators with separate displays on separate surfaces in order to provide enhanced security to card transactions by providing a dynamic code that can be verified by an issuer.
The teachings of Zellner et al./ Brady et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the first display displaying at least a continuously changing clock indicator that starts at a value and counts down to indicate to a user that at least some portion of credit card information displayed on said first display will change upon said clock counting completely down and restarting at said value.
Hathaway et al.in FIG. 3A+ teaches dynamic emulators that provide dynamic account number displaying or CVV displaying based on time/ clock (abstract+).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for the display of dynamic data for its security benefits.
The teachings of Zellner et al./ Brady et al./ Hathaway have been discussed above but are silent to the clock indicator as recited.
Peled teaches a card that displays a countdown indicating the remaining length of time for which a displayed password will be valid (countdown 24).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to have security but only allowing a displaying data to be valid for a specific period of time, so as to reduce risk of theft/ fraud and providing user indication of when a period expires.
Re the new limitation that the emulators communicate the different data simultaneously and independently for their displays, this is interpreted to be taught above via the different displays displaying different information simultaneously (during the transaction).
Re claim 2, Zellner et al. teaches a battery and processor (paragraph [0033] and 150).
Re claim 3, user input device 130 of Zellner et al. is interpreted as a user interface.
Re claim 4, paragraph [0038] teaches touch screen/sensitive areas.
Re claim 5, the limitations have been discussed above and Zellner et al. teaches the second display displays the rear of the card which includes the card code (interpreted as security code FIG. 2B).
Re claim 6, the Examiner notes that the recitation that a card comprises a material operable to receive marks from a writing instrument, the Examiner notes that as writing instruments and material have not been specifically defined, the Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a writing instrument (permanent marker, scribing tool, paint brush, etc.) could be used to mark the second surface, as the prior art does not appear to teach a specific material surface that resists marking. Zellner et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0034]). Further, Poidomani et al. teaches a signature area to accept marking with a writing instrument for security (42).
Re claims 7-8, as discussed above, the processor is able to change the data displayed since the card is able to emulate several accounts (FIG. 2A+ of Zellner et al.) and hence changed data.
Re claim 10, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 11, the limitations have been discussed above where the emulator is able to communicate changed data via the selection of different accounts.
Re claim 12, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 13, the limitations have been discussed above via the third track emulating coil.
Re claim 14, a user interface for inputs has been discussed above.
Re claim 15, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 17, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 18-19, as the card includes a processor and the card displays different card accounts, it is obvious that the card controls the changing of data coincident with the different cards/accounts selected.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zellner et al./ Brady et al./ Hathaway/ Peled, as discussed above, in view of Poidomani et al. (US 20100270373).
The teachings of Zellner et al./ Brady et al./ Peled have been discussed above but are
silent to a third emulator.
Poidomani et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0080]+).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to provide more track data/ more information.
Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al., as discussed above, in view of Zellner et al./ Hathaway et al./ Brady et al./ Peled, as discussed above.
Poidomani et al. teaches plural magnetic emulators operable to communicate first and second magnetic stripe data (FIG. 5A+ and paragraph [0079]+). First magnetic stripe data can include name/ account/ expiration and second magnetic data can be from the second coil (or reversed).
Poidomani et al. teaches a display 58 but is silent to the first and second displays for first and second emulators.
Zellner et al. teaches the two displays as recited, as discussed above.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for aesthetics and to mimic the appearance of a card and thus display information.
Poidomani et al./ Zellner is silent to the first display being one that changes and would thus obviate a clock indicator.
Brady et al. teaches changing the information displayed, as it is dynamically generated, as discussed above.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for the security associated with dynamic creation.
The teachings of Zellner et al./ Poidomani et al./ Brady et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the clock indicator as recited.
Hathaway et al. teaches time based embodiments as a trigger source but is silent to a counting clock before resetting.
Peled teaches a card that displays a countdown indicating the remaining length of time for which a displayed password will be valid (countdown 24).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to have security but only allowing a displaying data to be valid for a specific period of time, so as to reduce risk of theft/ fraud.
Re the new limitation that the emulators communicate the different data simultaneously and independently for their displays, this is interpreted to be taught above via the different displays displaying different information simultaneously (during the transaction).
Re claim 2, Hathaway et al. teaches such limtaitons (paragraph [0040]+). Further, Zellner et al. teaches a battery and processor (paragraph [0033] and 150), and at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for powering and controlling the card. Hathaway .
Re claim 3, Hathaway et al. teaches user inputs (FIG. 2) and user input device 130 of Zellner et al. is interpreted as a user interface, as an obvious expedient for inputs and controls.
Re claim 4, paragraph [0038] of Zellner et al. teaches touch screen/sensitive areas and it would have been obvious to combine for the ease and convenience.
Re claim 5, the limitations have been discussed above and Zellner et al. teaches the second display displays the rear of the card which includes the card code (interpreted as security code FIG. 2B).
Re claim 6, the Examiner notes that the recitation that a card comprises a material operable to receive marks from a writing instrument, the Examiner notes that as writing instruments and material have not been specifically defined, the Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a writing instrument (permanent marker, scribing tool, paint brush, etc.) could be used to mark the second surface, as the prior art does not appear to teach a specific material surface that resists marking. Zellner et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0034]). Further, Poidomani et al. teaches a signature area to accept marking with a writing instrument for security (42).
Re claims 7-8, as discussed above, the processor is able to change the data displayed since the card is able to emulate several accounts (FIG. 2 of Hathaway et al. and FIG. 2A+ of Zellner et al.) and hence changed data.
Re claim 9, as discussed above, Poidomani et al. teaches three emulators via the 3 track coils (paragraph [0080]) in order to comply with industry standards, known in the art, and thus would have been obvious to combine the teachings for compliance with standards.
Re claim 10, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 11, the limitations have been discussed above where the emulator is able to communicate changed data via the selection of different accounts.
Re claim 12, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 13, the limitations have been discussed above via the third track emulating coil.
Re claim 14, a user interface for inputs has been discussed above.
Re claim 15, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 17, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 18-19, as the card includes a processor and the card displays different card accounts, it is obvious that the card controls the changing of data coincident with the different cards/accounts selected.
Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nordentoft et al. (US 20050194452) in view of Zellner et al./ Brady et al./ Hathaway/ Peled, as discussed above.
Re claim 1, Nordentoft et al. teaches a card with a plurality of magnetic emulators emulating magnetic stripe data (abstract+ and FIG.5+). Nordentoft does not teach a magnetic stripe. While there are coils around core materials, there is not a conventional magnetic stripe (coil 42 has windings 420 and FIG. 5 shows 3 emulators for 3 stripe data/track data).
Nordentoft et al. is silent to the first and second displays on the first and second surfaces displaying first and second magnetic stripe data and the changing clock .
Zellner et al./ Brady et al./ Peled teach such limitations as discussed above.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for security, aesthetics (to mimic a traditional card), for countdown for security of dynamic data.
Re the new limitation that the emulators communicate the different data simultaneously and independently for their displays, this is interpreted to be taught above via the different displays displaying different information simultaneously (during the transaction).
Re claims 2-15 and 17-19, the limitations have been discussed above.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner has cited new art as well. The Examiner has interpreted magnetic stripe data to include at least a portion of magnetic stripe track data to be read on by magnetic stripe track data that is conventional for tracks on a magnetic stripe card, including the name, expiration data, account number, CVV, issuer number, etc. Even further, track data can be data that is related to track data, as track data has not been specifically defined.
The Examiner also provided a new matter rejection because the specification did not appear to support the newly added limitations.
Additional Remarks
Manessis et al. (US 20080197201) and Brown et al. (US 20100127083) teach dynamic codes being displayed on a card (re claim 5).
For the benefit of the Applicant and to provide support for teaching that emulators do not need magnetic stripes, the Examiner notes the teachings of Goodman et al. (US 20020043566 at paragraph [0027]+) teaches that most emulators do not have the stripe physical replicated but that the information is simulated to be read by a conventional reader. Not having a physical emulator, as discussed in the rejection above, provides benefits of reduced complexity/cost and providing more area on the card for other purposes.
Von Mueller et al. (US 20060049256) at paragraph [0043] + teaches that track one and track 2 include the account number.
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.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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