The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites that the magnetic emulation circuit comprises a single conductive wire comprising: a first region having a first conductive wire segment said first region being a non-active region, a second region having a second conductive wire segment perpendicular to the first side, said second region being an active region, a third region having a third conductive wire segment at approximately a forty-five degree angle with respect to the first side, the third region being a non-active region, wherein the active region is operable to produce an electromagnetic field that communicates with the read head while the non-active regions are not operable to be read by a read-head when the card is being swiped.
While the specification may teach that the orientations are specific so that the orientations that are NOT parallel are not as effective at communicating to a specific reader/ reader head, the Examiner notes that the specification does not support the recitation that the first and third regions are not operable to be read by a read-head when the card is swiped. The Examiner notes that the claims are drawn to a “card” and thus the card having a single wire, all of the regions are intpereted as operable to communicate with a read head when swiped, because they are part of the same wire. The limitations “non-active” and “not operable to be read” are not supported by the specification because the limitations are drawn to a card and the original disclosure does not support possession of a particular type of embodiment of such a card, as it appears a specific embodiment of a read head would be required, which is not supported by the specification teachings of a card. The limiting of reading of a card appears to be based on a reader, which is not germane to the card claim and therefore a card having such structural limitations is not supported by the specification, as the regions of the single wire are all operable to be read and active regions.
The dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As discussed above, the limitations of the active, non-active, operable, and not-operable render the claim vague/ indefinite because it is unclear how the first and third segments are not operable to communicate (non-active), as the wire segments are part of a single continuous conductive wire, and thus the segments are all interpreted as operable and active. It is unclear on how segments of a wire are not operable to communicate with the read head. Instead, it appears that the specification is relying upon a specific reader structure that is able to detect certain fields from certain segments at certain orientations but not from other segments from other orientations. As the claim is drawn to a card and not a card reader system including a card and a reader, limitations of the reader are not germane to the card structure itself. Accordingly, as the structure of the card is a single conductive wire, the Examiner notes that the segments are interpreted to produce the fields, and thus the claimed “not operable” and “non-active” are vague/ indefinite. The Examiner will interpret the limitations in that a card with the card structure as recited can function as claimed. Appropriate correction is requested. The dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependency.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is unclear on why only the second region is an active region/ operable to produce a field that communicates with the read head. For example, the third region at the junction/ start of the second region is sufficiently close that it is unclear why it would not be operable. It appears that the Applicant is importing limitations drawn to a reader sensitivity/ positioning/ location which are not germane to the card structure, and thus render the device (not system) claim indefinite.
Appropriate correction is requested. The dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependency.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 3-10, 15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al. (US 20020043566) in view of Sakamoto (US 20010002874) and Blossom (US 20030209608).
Goodman et al. teaches a card with a circuit comprising a single wire (FIG. 2 and paragraph [0028]+) with a first longer side and a second side, a dynamic communications device operable to communicate stripe data, a first region with a parallel segment, a second region with a perpendicular segment, and a third region with what appears to be a 45-degree angle segment (FIG. 1+). The Examiner has interpreted that as FIG. 2+ shows loops at 30, that there are parallel and perpendicular segments (sides) and that the corners roughly appear to be 45-degree angle segments (corresponds to Applicants FIG. 15). Goodman et al. teaches a processor to control the card (12/14). The sides of the emulator read on the perpendicular and parallel sides. The corners of the emulator appear to be at generally 45 degrees. When the general conditions of the claim are taught by the prior art, discovering/using a specific range/value involves only routine skill in the art, especially when absent unexpected results. It appears that both the prior art and the instant application would both function equally well with the orientation of Goodman et al., which would appear to be 45 degrees, to provide the expected results of the emulating the signal.
Goodman et al. teaches (paragraph [0027]) that with most emulators, the magnetic stripe of a conventional card is not physically replicated but it is rather the information on it that is simulated to allow the information to be read by a conventional card reader, suggesting that it is known and obvious not to include the physical stripe but just the emulating of the data to emulate a traditional striped card. Thus, Goodman et al. teaches the lack of a stripe in an emulator. Outputting serially is well known and conventional in the art to mimic a traditional card (such as a magnetic striped card). Thus, it would have been obvious to mimic the magnetic stripe serial communication with a magnetic emulator without a stripe, because emulators attempt to mimic striped cards for ease of use, acceptance, etc. Further, as the emulator and not stripe outputs the data, it would have been obvious that the lack of a stripe does not preclude the emulator from emulating/outputting serially to mimic traditional card output. One might be motivated to have a linear 45-degree corner for durability/ size constraints / shape constraints/ system constraints/ aesthetics/ antenna performance/ ease of manufacturing, etc. Further, minute shaping of corners, or linear sections, does not appear to significantly affect the coupling as its criticality has not been established, and as functional equivalents, it appears that the prior art would function equally well with the rounded corners or linear 45-degree corners. Further, shaping and the electrical or magnetic results of it, whether it be deleterious or advantageous, are compensated for and could be altered by other portions of the coil, etc., and therefore changing the shape appears to be within the ordinary skill in the art.
Re the newly added limitation that the circuit produces the fields, the Examiner notes that FIG. 2+ and microcontroller 14 teaches such limitations.
Nonetheless, Goodman et al. is silent to explicitly reciting the 45 degrees.
Sakamoto teaches that the coils can have chamfered (linear) 45-degree sections for durability (paragraph [0071] which corresponds to the 45 degrees per Applicants FIG. 15).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Goodman et al. with those of Sakamoto in order to have chamfered/45-degree linear corners, for expected results, such as durability/ size constraints / shape constraints/ system constraints/ aesthetics/ antenna performance/ ease of manufacturing, etc.
Goodman et al. / Sakamoto teach mimicking a magnetic stripe card above, but are silent to serially communicating the data (to a reader).
Blossom teaches such limitations (paragraph [0040]), and processor (FIG. 5).
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 Goodman et al. with those of Blossom.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to mimic conventional magnetic cards data output. The Examiner notes that as Goodman et al. teaches mimicking traditional cards data output (emulating), it would have been obvious to include serial output as taught by Blossom in order to meet such ends. The Examiner notes that though Blossom appears to have a magnetic stripe, that like traditional magnetic stripe cards, the data is output serially. As Goodman et al. above teaches that emulators mimic traditional cards and do not include magnetic stripes, it would have been within the ordinary skill in the art to output data serially to mimic traditional striped cards, realizing that the presence of a stripe in the Blossom reference (or a standard magnetic stripe of a standard card reference) does not preclude the desirability of having an emulator output in the same fashion. Simply put, serial emulation is taught and known to be used with magnetic stripes (as evidenced by Blossom and traditional striped cards) and therefore it would have been obvious to have serial output in the stripe-free emulator of Goodman et al. to achieve the expected results of mimicking a traditional card. The teachings of Goodman et al. do not appear to require a stripe to serially output data, as the data is output by the emulator, and thus how data is output would be (serially) would be desirous in the emulator of Goodman et al. to mimic a striped card for acceptance and ease of use by conventional readers.
For clarity, given the figure of Goodman (below), the dynamic magnetic communication device is interpreted as being substantially 8 sided (top side, bottom side, left side, right side, and on the left side there the 45-degree angle limitation is taught via the section extending from the top horizontal and side vertical sections. Therefore, as there are 8 sides there are interpreted as at least 5 corners (8 corners).
PNG
media_image2.png
277
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
390
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This simplified generated diagram above shows the Examiners interpretation, shown with respect to Applicants own FIG. 15, which is described as the third segments at approximately 45-degree angle from the first side.
PNG
media_image3.png
427
413
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from the comparison to FIG. 1 of Sakamoto (above), with 45-degree angles analogous to the 45-degree angles of claim 1 and the Applicants FIG. 15, that the combination of Goodman et al. with Sakamoto et al. teaches 8 corners, the recited 45-degree limitation.
Re the limitation that an electromagnetic field of the first wire (segment) and an electromagnetic field of said third conductive wire segment are not operable to communicate with a read head of a magnetic stripe reader while said second conductive wire segment is operable to communicate with said read head, the Examiner notes that the emulator of the prior teaches an emulator with the parallel, perpendicular, and forty-five-degree angle segments. Accordingly, for the limitations of “not operable to communicate” are interpreted as being met as the recited structure is taught and therefore the structure is interpreted as able to perform the limitations as claimed. Limitations of a specific reader that do not allow or are not effective for receiving certain fields from the various segments is not germane to the card claim for a given card structure. Therefore, as the card meets the structural limitations, it is interpreted to read on the claims.
Alternatively, whether or not these sections are “operable” to communicate while the second wire (segment) communicates, appears to be a limitation of the reader and not the structure of the card itself. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that such a limitation about “not operable” to communicate is therefore obviated based on geometry for some reader configuration, such a reader configuration being one that passes over the x-axis field section 1511 would result in a read head communicating with an x-axis field as it passes over it and not operable to communicate with the 45 degree and first wire segment 1531 due to the reduced field that those sections provide that would not be able to be sensed by the read head/ an incorrect field orientation not being operable to communicate with the read head. As such limitations appear to be drawn to the read head/ reader structure and not the card itself, the prior art is interpreted as teaching the claimed structure limitations of the card and thus reads on the claimed limitations as the limitations about not operable are implicit based on geometry for some reader configuration.
The Examiner will interpret that a card structured as recited is operable to perform the limitations in the presence of a reader (not part of the card claim) and thus reads on the card claim.
Re the newly added limitations of a first, active region operable to produce an EM field that communicates with the read head and the second and third non-active regions are not operable to be read by a read head when the card is swiped, the Examiner notes that such limitations appears to be drawn to limitations of a reader structure, and are not germane to the card structure claim itself. The Examiner has interpreted that the card limitations structure is taught by the prior art as discussed above via the above teachings of the horizontal, vertical, and chamfered regions. The prior art structure is interpreted as capable of having the active and non-active regions to communicate and such regions are communicate with the read head and also be not-operable to be read, depending on the type of reader structure that would be provided. As the claim is a card claim, the prior art teachings support the structure of the card. The intended use of the card in a particular system with a particular reader that results in the claimed active/ non-active regions that are operable to produce an EM field and not operable to be read are not germane to the card structure. The prior art teachings teach the card structure limitations which are operable to function as claimed, given this is a device (card) claim and not a system claim. Though the functionality of the active and non-active regions are not explicitly taught by the prior art, such limitations are structurally taught, and since they are based on specific reader embodiment, the reader used is not germane to the card structure. The structure of the prior art therefore reads on the card limitations and is operable to function as recited, given that the reader is not germane to the card claims and is not recited in the card claim.
Re claim 3, Goodman et al. teaches a battery 16.
Re claim 4, as discussed above, Goodman et al. /Blossom teach a battery and a processor. Further, Goodman et al. teaches a power switch 18 and keyboard (paragraph [0029]). Though silent to a button, the Examiner note that in light of a power switch, the use of a button would have been an obvious expedient as an alternative means to turn on a device, and the selection could be motivated by design variation, cost, aesthetics, form factor, feel, etc. Alternatively, a key of a keyboard can be interpreted as a button.
Re claim 5, the teachings of Goodman et al. /Blossom have been discussed above, wherein Blossom teaches the use of a display (abstract).
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 Goodman et al. with those of Blossom to display card related data.
Re claim 6, FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al. shows more than 1 communications device.
Re claims 7-10, FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al. teaches such limitations, wherein a “segment” is a part of the top, side, and angled wire sections that meet the recited length relationship, and further, based on the number of loops, taking into consideration desired application, data usage, security, system constraints, etc.
Re claim 15, the regions are regions of a coil (FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al.).
Re claim 19, though Goodman et al. is electronic, it is silent to driving circuits. Blossom teaches driving circuits (58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Goodman et al. with those of Blossom to ensure the emulator is driven to mimic magnetic stripe cards.
Re claim 21, for clarification the Examiner references FIG. 2 of Goodman et al. The first end of the 3rd segment is interpreted as the portion of the roughly 45-degree angle segment that touches the 1st wire segment (segment parallel to the long side of the card), at the first end of the first segment, and the 2nd end of the 3rd segment is the other end of the roughly 45-degree segment that touches a first end of the second segment, located at the intersection of the roughly 45-degree section and the wire segment parallel to the shorter card side.
PNG
media_image2.png
277
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./ Sakamoto et al. / Blossom, as discussed above, in view of Narendra et al. (US 7364092).
Goodman et al. / Sakamoto et al. / Blossom are silent to the detectors as discussed above, including processor controlling the card.
Narendra teaches the two detectors and a processor as well for controlling/executing functions on the card, as known in the art (FIG. 4).
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 Goodman et al. / Sakamoto et al. / Blossom with those of Narendra et al.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to separately control what tracks are communicated.
The teachings of Goodman et al. / Sakamoto et al. / Blossom have been discussed above.
Goodman et al. / Sakamoto et al. / Blossom are silent to first through sixth read head detectors.
Narendra et al. teaches that a swipe sensor can be at the start and end of the magnetic stripe area (col 3, lines 40), which teaches two read head sensors. Narendra et al. then goes on to recite that swipe sensors can be on one or both sides of the card (col 3, lines 45+). Thus, the Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the additional 2 read head sensors on the other side of the card, as supported by the teachings of Narendra et al. It would have been obvious to do so to communicate data to the read head even if the card was inserted with the stripe facing the wrong way, and thus have up to 4 sensors as an obvious expedient to control emulating.
Though silent to 6 sensors, the Examiner notes that merely duplicating essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art, especially when there are expected results. In the instant case, duplicating read head detectors to have 6, produces the obvious result of being able to emulate at more regions of the card, such as the card being able to be read regardless of orientation into a reader.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./ Sakamoto et al. /Blossom/Narendra et al., as discussed above, in view of Reppermund (US 20040011877).
Re claims 11-12, the teachings of Goodman et al./ Sakamoto et al. /Blossom/Narendra et al. have been discussed above.
Goodman et al. / Sakamoto et al. /Blossom/Narendra et al. teach sensors on each end of a stripe and on both sides, but are silent to specifically reciting the 4 and 6 sensors.
Reppermund teaches (FIG. 3+) 4 stripes (2 on each side) so that the card stripe can be read regardless of insertion direction.
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 Goodman et al. / Sakamoto et al. / Blossom/Narendra et al. with those of Reppermund et al. in order to have at least the 6 sensors, such as one on each end of the stripe, so that the card can emulate the magnetic data to a reader, regardless of orientation, for convenience/ease of use.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./Sakamoto et al./Blossom, as discussed above, in view of Poidomani et al. (US 20070034700).
Re claims 16-18 and 20, the teachings of Goodman et al. /Sakamoto et al. /Blossom et al. have been discussed above.
Goodman et al. / Sakamoto et al. / Blossom et al. are silent to magnetic shielding (re claim 20) and are silent to the multiple layer printed circuit board /flexible PCB.
Re claim 20, Poidomani et al. teaches shielding (paragraph [0101]). Re claims 16-18, Poidomani teaches the use of a multiplayer PCB (paragraph [0108]). Flexibility is an obvious expedient for durability.
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 Goodman et al. / Sakamoto et al. / Blossom et al. with those of Poidomani et al. to reduce interference and to conform with accepted manufacturing practices for reliability of connections, durability, low costs, ease of assembly, etc., especially as they appear to be able to functional coplanar in the prior art.
Claims 1, 3-10, 15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al. (US 20020043566) in view of Shinoiri (US 20070085202) and Blossom (US 20030209608).
The teachings of Goodman et al. have been discussed above but are silent to reciting
45 degrees.
Shinoiri teaches that the coil antenna can have 90-degree corners, rounded corners, or chamfered (interpreted as linear section for 45 degrees) (paragraph [0076] +, FIG. 1A+, and FIG. 7+).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Goodman et al. with those of Shinoiri in order to have chamfered/45-degree linear corners, for expected results, such as durability/ size constraints / shape constraints/ system constraints/ aesthetics/ antenna performance/ ease of manufacturing, etc.
The limitations regarding the lengths of the wire segments and their relationships (limitations) has been discussed above.
Goodman et al. /Shinoiri teach mimicking a magnetic stripe card above, but are silent to serially communicating the data (to a reader).
Blossom teaches such limitations (paragraph [0040]), and processor (FIG. 5).
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 Goodman et al. with those of Blossom.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to mimic conventional magnetic cards data output. The Examiner notes that as Goodman et al. teaches mimicking traditional cards data output (emulating), it would have been obvious to include serial output as taught by Blossom in order to meet such ends. The Examiner notes that though Blossom appears to have a magnetic stripe, that like traditional magnetic stripe cards, the data is output serially. As Goodman et al. above teaches that emulators mimic traditional cards and do not include magnetic stripes, it would have been within the ordinary skill in the art to output data serially to mimic traditional striped cards, realizing that the presence of a stripe in the Blossom reference (or a standard magnetic stripe of a standard card reference) does not preclude the desirability of having an emulator output in the same fashion. Simply put, serial emulation is taught and known to be used with magnetic stripes (as evidenced by Blossom and traditional striped cards) and therefore it would have been obvious to have serial output in the stripe-free emulator of Goodman et al. to achieve the expected results of mimicking a traditional card. The teachings of Goodman et al. do not appear to require a stripe to serially output data, as the data is output by the emulator, and thus how data is output would be (serially) would be desirous in the emulator of Goodman et al. to mimic a striped card for acceptance and ease of use by conventional readers.
Re the limitation that an electromagnetic field of the first wire (segment) and an electromagnetic field of said third conductive wire segment are not operable to communicate with a read head of a magnetic stripe reader while said second conductive wire segment is operable to communicate with said read head, the Examiner notes that the emulator of the prior teaches an emulator with the parallel, perpendicular, and forty-five-degree angle segments. Accordingly, for the limitations of “not operable to communicate” are interpreted as being met as the recited structure is taught and therefore the structure is interpreted as able to perform the limitations as claimed.
Alternatively, whether or not these sections are “operable” to communicate while the second wire (segment) communicates, appears to be a limitation of the reader and not the structure of the card itself. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that such a limitation about “not operable” to communicate is therefore obviated based on geometry for some reader configuration, such a reader configuration being one that passes over the x-axis field section 1511 would result in a read head communicating with an x-axis field as it passes over it and not operable to communicate with the 45 degree and first wire segment 1531 due to the reduced field that those sections provide that would not be able to be sensed by the read head/ an incorrect field orientation not being operable to communicate with the read head. As such limitations appear to be drawn to the read head/ reader structure and not the card itself, the prior art is interpreted as teaching the claimed structure limitations of the card and thus reads on the claimed limitations as the limitations about not operable are implicit based on geometry for some reader configuration.
Re the newly added limitations of a first, active region operable to produce an EM field that communicates with the read head and the second and third non-active regions are not operable to be read by a read head when the card is swiped, the Examiner notes that such limitations appears to be drawn to limitations of a reader structure, and are not germane to the card structure claim itself. The Examiner has interpreted that the card limitations structure is taught by the prior art as discussed above via the above teachings of the horizontal, vertical, and chamfered regions. The prior art structure is interpreted as capable of having the active and non-active regions to communicate and such regions are communicate with the read head and also be not-operable to be read, depending on the type of reader structure that would be provided. As the claim is a card claim, the prior art teachings support the structure of the card. The intended use of the card in a particular system with a particular reader that results in the claimed active/ non-active regions that are operable to produce an EM field and not operable to be read are not germane to the card structure. The prior art teachings teach the card structure limitations which are operable to function as claimed, given this is a device (card) claim and not a system claim. Though the functionality of the active and non-active regions are not explicitly taught by the prior art, such limitations are structurally taught, and since they are based on specific reader embodiment, the reader used is not germane to the card structure. The structure of the prior art therefore reads on the card limitations and is operable to function as recited, given that the reader is not germane to the card claims and is not recited in the card claim.
Re claim 3, Goodman et al. teaches a battery 16.
Re claim 4, as discussed above, Goodman et al. /Blossom teaches a battery and a processor. Further, Goodman et al. teaches a power switch 18 and keyboard (paragraph [0029]). Though silent to a button, the Examiner note that in light of a power switch, the use of a button would have been an obvious expedient as an alternative means to turn on a device, and the selection could be motivated by design variation, cost, aesthetics, form factor, feel, etc. Alternatively, a key of a keyboard can be interpreted as a button.
Re claim 5, the teachings of Blossom have been discussed above. Blossom teaches the use of a display (abstract).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to display card related data.
Re claim 6, FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al. shows more than 1 communications device.
Re claims 7-10, FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al. teaches such limitations, wherein a “segment” is a part of the top, side, and angled wire sections that meet the recited length relationship, and further, based on the number of loops, taking into consideration desired application, data usage, security, system constraints, etc.
Re claim 15, the regions are regions of a coil (FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al.).
Re claim 19, though Goodman et al. is electronic, it is silent to driving circuits. Blossom teaches driving circuits (58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Goodman et al. with those of Blossom to ensure the emulator is driven to mimic magnetic stripe cards.
Re claim 21, for clarification the Examiner references FIG. 2 of Goodman et al. The first end of the 3rd segment is interpreted as the portion of the 45 degree angle segment that touches the 1st wire segment (segment parallel to the long side of the card), at the first end of the first segment, and the 2nd end of the 3rd segment is the other end of the 45 degree segment that touches a first end of the second segment, located at the intersection of the 45 degree section and the wire segment parallel to the shorter card side, also noting Shinoiri teaches using 45 degree angle sections as discussed above.
Claims 2 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./ Shinoiri / Blossom, as discussed above, in view of Narendra et al. as discussed above.
Goodman et al. / Shinoiri / Blossom are silent to the detectors as discussed above, including processor controlling the card.
Narendra teaches the two detectors and a processor as well for controlling/executing functions on the card, as known in the art (FIG. 4).
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 Goodman et al. /Blossom with those of Narendra et al.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to separately control what tracks are communicated.
The teachings of Goodman et al. / Shinoiri / Blossom have been discussed above.
Goodman et al. / Shinoiri / Blossom are silent to first through sixth read head detectors.
Narendra et al. teaches that a swipe sensor can be at the start and end of the magnetic stripe area (col 3, lines 40), which teaches two read head sensors. Narendra et al. then goes on to recite that swipe sensors can be on one or both sides of the card (col 3, lines 45+). Thus, the Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the additional 2 read head sensors on the other side of the card, as supported by the teachings of Narendra et al. It would have been obvious to do so to communicate data to the read head even if the card was inserted with the stripe facing the wrong way, and thus have up to 4 sensors as an obvious expedient to control emulating.
Though silent to 6 sensors, the Examiner notes that merely duplicating essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art, especially when there are expected results. In the instant case, duplicating read head detectors to have 6, produces the obvious result of being able to emulate at more regions of the card, such as the card being able to be read regardless of orientation into a reader.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./ Shinoiri /Blossom/Narendra et al., as discussed above, in view of Reppermund (US 20040011877).
Re claims 11-12, the teachings of Goodman et al. / Shinoiri /Blossom/Narendra et al. have been discussed above.
Goodman et al. / Shinoiri /Blossom/Narendra et al. teach sensors on each end of a stripe and on both sides, but are silent to specifically reciting the 4 and 6 sensors.
Reppermund teaches (FIG. 3+) 4 stripes (2 on each side) so that the card stripe can be read regardless of insertion direction.
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 Goodman et al. / Shinoiri / Blossom/Narendra et al. with those of Reppermund et al. in order to have at least the 6 sensors, such as one on each end of the stripe, so that the card can emulate the magnetic data to a reader, regardless of orientation, for convenience/ease of use.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./Shinoiri/Blossom, as discussed above, in view of Poidomani et al. (US 20070034700).
Re claims 16-18 and 20, the teachings of Goodman et al./Shinoiri/Blossom et al. have been discussed above.
Goodman et al. / Shinoiri/ Blossom et al. are silent to magnetic shielding (re claim 20) and are silent to the multiple layer printed circuit board /flexible PCB.
Re claim 20, Poidomani et al. teaches shielding (paragraph [0101]). Re claims 16-18, Poidomani teaches the use of a multiplayer PCB (paragraph [0108]). Flexibility is an obvious expedient for durability.
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 Goodman et al. / Shinoiri/ Blossom et al. with those of Poidomani et al. to reduce interference and to conform with accepted manufacturing practices for reliability of connections, durability, low costs, ease of assembly, etc., especially as they appear to be able to functional coplanar in the prior art.
Claims 1, 3-10, 15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al. (US 20020043566) in view of Blossom (US 20030209608).
Goodman et al. teaches a card with a first longer side and a second side, a dynamic communications device operable to communicate stripe data, a first region with a parallel segment, a second region with a perpendicular segment, and a third region with what appears to be a 45 degree angle segment (FIG. 1+). The Examiner has interpreted that as FIG. 1+ shows loops at 30, that there are parallel and perpendicular segments (sides) and that the corners roughly appear to be 45 degree angle segments. Goodman et al. teaches a processor to control the card (12/14). The sides of the emulator read on the perpendicular and parallel sides. The corners of the emulator appear to be at 45 degrees. When the general conditions of the claim are taught by the prior art, discovering/using a specific range/value involves only routine skill in the art, especially when absent unexpected results. It appears that both the prior art and the instant application would both function equally well with the orientation of Goodman et al., which would appear to be 45 degrees, to provide the expected results of the emulating. Goodman et al. teaches (paragraph [0027]) that with most emulators, the magnetic stripe of a conventional card is not physically replicated but it is rather the information on it that is simulated to allow the information to be read by a conventional card reader, suggesting that it is known and obvious not to include the physical stripe but just the emulating of the data to emulate a traditional striped card. Thus, Goodman et al. teaches the lack of a stripe in an emulator. Outputting serially is well known and conventional in the art to mimic a traditional card (such as a magnetic striped card). Thus it would have been obvious to mimic the magnetic stripe serial communication with a magnetic emulator without a stripe, because emulators attempt to mimic striped cards for ease of use, acceptance, etc. Further, as the emulator and not stripe outputs the data, it would have been obvious that the lack of a stripe does not preclude the emulator from emulating/outputting serially to mimic traditional card output.
Though silent to explicitly reciting 45 degrees, shaping an antenna is obvious to the skilled artisan, particularly since no evidence has been cited in the record citing criticality and/or which perfects the invention to provide a functional advantage, etc. One might be motivated to have a linear 45-degree corner expected results such as durability/ size constraints / shape constraints/ system constraints/ aesthetics/ antenna performance/ ease of manufacturing, etc. Further, minute shaping of corners, or linear sections, may not significantly affect the coupling as its criticality has not been established, and as functional equivalents, it appears that the prior art would function equally well with the rounded corners or linear 45-degree corners and that shape changing is within the ordinary skill in the art for expected results.
Goodman et al. teaches mimicking a magnetic stripe card above, but is silent to serially communicating the data (to a reader).
Blossom teaches such limitations (paragraph [0040]), and processor (FIG. 5).
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 Goodman et al. with those of Blossom.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to mimic conventional magnetic cards data output. The Examiner notes that as Goodman et al. teaches mimicking traditional cards data output (emulating), it would have been obvious to include serial output as taught by Blossom in order to meet such ends. The Examiner notes that though Blossom appears to have a magnetic stripe, that like traditional magnetic stripe cards, the data is output serially. As Goodman et al. above teaches that emulators mimic traditional cards and do not include magnetic stripes, it would have been within the ordinary skill in the art to output data serially to mimic traditional striped cards, realizing that the presence of a stripe in the Blossom reference (or a standard magnetic stripe of a standard card reference) does not preclude the desirability of having an emulator output in the same fashion. Simply put, serial emulation is taught and known to be used with magnetic stripes (as evidenced by Blossom and traditional striped cards) and therefore it would have been obvious to have serial output in the stripe-free emulator of Goodman et al. to achieve the expected results of mimicking a traditional card. The teachings of Goodman et al. do not appear to require a stripe to serially output data, as the data is output by the emulator, and thus how data is output would be (serially) would be desirous in the emulator of Goodman et al. to mimic a striped card for acceptance and ease of use by conventional readers.
Re the limitation that an electromagnetic field of the first wire (segment) and an electromagnetic field of said third conductive wire segment are not operable to communicate with a read head of a magnetic stripe reader while said second conductive wire segment is operable to communicate with said read head, the Examiner notes that the emulator of the prior teaches an emulator with the parallel, perpendicular, and forty-five-degree angle segments. Accordingly, for the limitations of “not operable to communicate” are interpreted as being met as the recited structure is taught and therefore the structure is interpreted as able to perform the limitations as claimed.
Alternatively, whether or not these sections are “operable” to communicate while the second wire (segment) communicates, appears to be a limitation of the reader and not the structure of the card itself. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that such a limitation about “not operable” to communicate is therefore obviated based on geometry for some reader configuration, such a reader configuration being one that passes over the x-axis field section 1511 would result in a read head communicating with an x-axis field as it passes over it and not operable to communicate with the 45 degree and first wire segment 1531 due to the reduced field that those sections provide that would not be able to be sensed by the read head/ an incorrect field orientation not being operable to communicate with the read head. As such limitations appear to be drawn to the read head/ reader structure and not the card itself, the prior art is interpreted as teaching the claimed structure limitations of the card and thus reads on the claimed limitations as the limitations about not operable are implicit based on geometry for some reader configuration.
Re the newly added limitations of a first, active region operable to produce an EM field that communicates with the read head and the second and third non-active regions are not operable to be read by a read head when the card is swiped, the Examiner notes that such limitations appears to be drawn to limitations of a reader structure, and are not germane to the card structure claim itself. The Examiner has interpreted that the card limitations structure is taught by the prior art as discussed above via the above teachings of the horizontal, vertical, and chamfered regions. The prior art structure is interpreted as capable of having the active and non-active regions to communicate and such regions are communicate with the read head and also be not-operable to be read, depending on the type of reader structure that would be provided. As the claim is a card claim, the prior art teachings support the structure of the card. The intended use of the card in a particular system with a particular reader that results in the claimed active/ non-active regions that are operable to produce an EM field and not operable to be read are not germane to the card structure. The prior art teachings teach the card structure limitations which are operable to function as claimed, given this is a device (card) claim and not a system claim. Though the functionality of the active and non-active regions are not explicitly taught by the prior art, such limitations are structurally taught, and since they are based on specific reader embodiment, the reader used is not germane to the card structure. The structure of the prior art therefore reads on the card limitations and is operable to function as recited, given that the reader is not germane to the card claims and is not recited in the card claim.
Re claim 3, Goodman et al. teaches a battery 16.
Re claim 4, as discussed above, Goodman et al. /Blossom teach a battery and a processor. Further, Goodman et al. teaches a power switch 18 and keyboard (paragraph [0029]). Though silent to a button, the Examiner note that in light of a power switch, the use of a button would have been an obvious expedient as an alternative means to turn on a device, and the selection could be motivated by design variation, cost, aesthetics, form factor, feel, etc. Alternatively, a key of a keyboard can be interpreted as a button.
Re claim 5, the teachings of Goodman et al. /Blossom have been discussed above. Blossom teaches the use of a display (abstract).
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 Goodman et al. with those of Blossom to display card related data.
Re claim 6, FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al. shows more than 1 communications device.
Re claims 7-10, FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al. teaches such limitations, wherein a “segment” is a part of the top, side, and angled wire sections that meet the recited length relationship, and further, based on the number of loops, taking into consideration desired application, data usage, security, system constraints, etc.
Re claim 15, the regions are regions of a coil (FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al.).
Re claim 19, though Goodman et al. is electronic, it is silent to driving circuits. Blossom teaches driving circuits (58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Goodman et al. with those of Blossom to ensure the emulator is driven to mimic magnetic stripe cards.
Re claim 21, for clarification the Examiner references FIG. 2 of Goodman et al. The first end of the 3rd segment is interpreted as the portion of the 45-degree angle segment that touches the 1st wire segment (segment parallel to the long side of the card), at the first end of the first segment, and the 2nd end of the 3rd segment is the other end of the 45-degree segment that touches a first end of the second segment, located at the intersection of the 45-degree section and the wire segment parallel to the shorter card side.
Claims 2 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./Blossom, as discussed above, in view of Narendra et al. as discussed above.
Goodman et al. /Blossom are silent to the detectors as discussed above, including processor controlling the card.
Narendra teaches the two detectors and a processor as well for controlling/executing functions on the card, as known in the art (FIG. 4).
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 Goodman et al. /Blossom with those of Narendra et al.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to separately control what tracks are communicated.
The teachings of Goodman et al. /Blossom have been discussed above.
Goodman et al. /Blossom are silent to first through sixth read head detectors.
Narendra et al. teaches that a swipe sensor can be at the start and end of the magnetic stripe area (col 3, lines 40), which teaches two read head sensors. Narendra et al. then goes on to recite that swipe sensors can be on one or both sides of the card (col 3, lines 45+). Thus, the Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the additional 2 read head sensors on the other side of the card, as supported by the teachings of Narendra et al. It would have been obvious to do so to communicate data to the read head even if the card was inserted with the stripe facing the wrong way, and thus have up to 4 sensors as an obvious expedient to control emulating.
Though silent to 6 sensors, the Examiner notes that merely duplicating essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art, especially when there are expected results. In the instant case, duplicating read head detectors to have 6, produces the obvious result of being able to emulate at more regions of the card, such as the card being able to be read regardless of orientation into a reader.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./Blossom/Narendra et al., as discussed above, in view of Reppermund (US 20040011877).
Re claims 11-12, the teachings of Goodman et al./Blossom/Narendra et al. have been discussed above.
Goodman et al./Blossom/Narendra et al. teach sensors on each end of a stripe and on both sides, but are silent to specifically reciting the 4 and 6 sensors.
Reppermund teaches (FIG. 3+) 4 stripes (2 on each side) so that the card stripe can be read regardless of insertion direction.
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 Goodman et al./Blossom/Narendra et al. with those of Reppermund et al. in order to have at least the 6 sensors, such as one on each end of the stripe, so that the card can emulate the magnetic data to a reader, regardless of orientation, for convenience/ease of use.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./Blossom, as discussed above, in view of Poidomani et al. (US 20070034700).
Re claims 16-18 and 20, the teachings of Goodman et al. /Blossom et al. have been discussed above.
Goodman et al. /Blossom et al. are silent to magnetic shielding (re claim 20) and are silent to the multiple layer printed circuit board /flexible PCB.
Re claim 20, Poidomani et al. teaches shielding (paragraph [0101]). Re claims 16-18, Poidomani teaches the use of a multiplayer PCB (paragraph [0108]). Flexibility is an obvious expedient for durability.
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 Goodman et al. /Blossom et al. with those of Poidomani et al. to reduce interference and to conform with accepted manufacturing practices for reliability of connections, durability, low costs, ease of assembly, etc., especially as they appear to be able to functional coplanar in the prior art.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al. (US 20020043566) in view of Hodama (US 4786791).
Goodman et al. teaches a card with a first longer side and a second side, a dynamic communications device operable to communicate stripe data, a first region with a parallel segment, a second region with a perpendicular segment, and a third region with what appears to be a 45-degree angle segment (FIG. 1+). The Examiner has interpreted that as FIG. 1+ shows loops at 30, that there are parallel and perpendicular segments (sides) and that the corners roughly appear to be 45-degree angle segments. Goodman et al. teaches a processor to control the card (12/14). The sides of the emulator read on the perpendicular and parallel sides. The corners of the emulator appear to be at 45 degrees. When the general conditions of the claim are taught by the prior art, discovering/using a specific range/value involves only routine skill in the art, especially when absent unexpected results. It appears that both the prior art and the instant application would both function equally well with the orientation of Goodman et al., which would appear to be 45 degrees, to provide the expected results of the emulating. Shape changing to arrive at a 45-degree angle would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art for expected results of durability/ size constraints / shape constraints/ system constraints/ aesthetics/ antenna performance/ ease of manufacturing, etc. Goodman et al. teaches (paragraph [0027]) that with most emulators, the magnetic stripe of a conventional card is not physically replicated but it is rather the information on it that is simulated to allow the information to be read by a conventional card reader, suggesting that it is known and obvious not to include the physical stripe but just the emulating of the data to emulate a traditional striped card. Thus, the lack of a stripe is taught.
Though silent to explicitly reciting 45 degrees, shaping an antenna is obvious to the skilled artisan, particularly since no evidence has been cited in the record citing criticality and/or which perfects the invention to provide a functional advantage, etc. One might be motivated to have a linear 45-degree corner for the expected results of durability/ size constraints / shape constraints/ system constraints/ aesthetics/ antenna performance/ ease of manufacturing, etc. Further, minute shaping of corners, or linear sections, may not significantly affect the coupling as its criticality has not been established, and as functional equivalents, it appears that the prior art would function equally well with the rounded corners or linear 45-degree corners. Further, shaping and the electrical or magnetic results of it, whether it be deleterious or advantageous, are compensated for by other portions of the coil, etc., and therefore changing the shape would have been obvious to produce expected results.
The limitations regarding the wire segment lengths and their relationships (limitations) has been discussed above
Goodman et al. teaches mimicking a magnetic stripe card above, but is silent to serially communicating the data (to a reader).
Hodama teaches serial output (FIG. 1+) wherein the serial output of line 20 connects to the driver circuit to drive the coils. Hodama does not have a magnetic stripe.
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 Goodman et al. with those of Hodama.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to mimic conventional magnetic cards.
Re the limitations of the five corners, this has been discussed above re the teachings and FIG. of Goodman et al., and the Examiner diagram indicating the arrangement of the corners and segments so as to read on the claimed limitations.
Re the limitation that an electromagnetic field of the first wire (segment) and an electromagnetic field of said third conductive wire segment are not operable to communicate with a read head of a magnetic stripe reader while said second conductive wire segment is operable to communicate with said read head, the Examiner notes that the emulator of the prior teaches an emulator with the parallel, perpendicular, and forty-five-degree angle segments. Accordingly, for the limitations of “not operable to communicate” are interpreted as being met as the recited structure is taught and therefore the structure is interpreted as able to perform the limitations as claimed.
Alternatively, whether or not these sections are “operable” to communicate while the second wire (segment) communicates, appears to be a limitation of the reader and not the structure of the card itself. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that such a limitation about “not operable” to communicate is therefore obviated based on geometry for some reader configuration, such a reader configuration being one that passes over the x-axis field section 1511 would result in a read head communicating with an x-axis field as it passes over it and not operable to communicate with the 45 degree and first wire segment 1531 due to the reduced field that those sections provide that would not be able to be sensed by the read head/ an incorrect field orientation not being operable to communicate with the read head. As such limitations appear to be drawn to the read head/ reader structure and not the card itself, the prior art is interpreted as teaching the claimed structure limitations of the card and thus reads on the claimed limitations as the limitations about not operable are implicit based on geometry for some reader configuration.
Re the newly added limitations of a first, active region operable to produce an EM field that communicates with the read head and the second and third non-active regions are not operable to be read by a read head when the card is swiped, the Examiner notes that such limitations appears to be drawn to limitations of a reader structure, and are not germane to the card structure claim itself. The Examiner has interpreted that the card limitations structure is taught by the prior art as discussed above via the above teachings of the horizontal, vertical, and chamfered regions. The prior art structure is interpreted as capable of having the active and non-active regions to communicate and such regions are communicate with the read head and also be not-operable to be read, depending on the type of reader structure that would be provided. As the claim is a card claim, the prior art teachings support the structure of the card. The intended use of the card in a particular system with a particular reader that results in the claimed active/ non-active regions that are operable to produce an EM field and not operable to be read are not germane to the card structure. The prior art teachings teach the card structure limitations which are operable to function as claimed, given this is a device (card) claim and not a system claim. Though the functionality of the active and non-active regions are not explicitly taught by the prior art, such limitations are structurally taught, and since they are based on specific reader embodiment, the reader used is not germane to the card structure. The structure of the prior art therefore reads on the card limitations and is operable to function as recited, given that the reader is not germane to the card claims and is not recited in the card claim.
Re claim 3, Goodman et al. teaches a battery 16.
Re claim 4, as discussed above, Goodman et al. /Hodama teach a battery and a processor. Further, Goodman et al. teaches a power switch 18 and keyboard (paragraph [0029]). Though silent to a button, the Examiner note that in light of a power switch, the use of a button would have been an obvious expedient as an alternative means to turn on a device, and the selection could be motivated by design variation, cost, aesthetics, form factor, feel, etc. Alternatively, a key of a keyboard can be interpreted as a button.
Re claim 6, FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al. shows more than 1 communications device.
Re claims 7-10, FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al. teaches such limitations, wherein a “segment” is a part of the top, side, and angled wire sections that meet the recited length relationship, and further, based on the number of loops, taking into consideration desired application, data usage, security, system constraints, etc.
Re claim 15, the regions are regions of a coil (FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al.).
Re claim 19, though Goodman et al. is electronic, it is silent to driving circuits. Blossom teaches driving circuits (58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Goodman et al. with those of Blossom to ensure the emulator is driven to mimic magnetic stripe cards.
Re claim 21, for clarification the Examiner references FIG. 2 of Goodman et al. The first end of the 3rd segment is interpreted as the portion of the 45-degree angle segment that touches the 1st wire segment (segment parallel to the long side of the card), at the first end of the first segment, and the 2nd end of the 3rd segment is the other end of the 45-degree segment that touches a first end of the second segment, located at the intersection of the 45-degree section and the wire segment parallel to the shorter card side.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./Hodama, as discussed above, in view of Blossom.
Re claim 5, the teachings of Goodman et al. /Hodama have been discussed above, but are silent to a display.
Blossom teaches the use of a display (abstract).
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 Goodman et al. / Hodama with those of Blossom to display card related data.
Claims 2 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./Hodama, as discussed above, in view of Narendra et al. as discussed above.
Goodman et al. /Hodama are silent to the detectors as discussed above, including processor controlling the card.
Narendra teaches the two detectors and a processor as well for controlling/executing functions on the card, as known in the art (FIG. 4).
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 Goodman et al. /Blossom with those of Narendra et al.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to separately control what tracks are communicated.
The teachings of Goodman et al. /Hodama have been discussed above.
Goodman et al. /Hodama are silent to first through sixth read head detectors.
Narendra et al. teaches that a swipe sensor can be at the start and end of the magnetic stripe area (col 3, lines 40), which teaches two read head sensors. Narendra et al. then goes on to recite that swipe sensors can be on one or both sides of the card (col 3, lines 45+). Thus, the Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the additional 2 read head sensors on the other side of the card, as supported by the teachings of Narendra et al. It would have been obvious to do so to communicate data to the read head even if the card was inserted with the stripe facing the wrong way, and thus have up to 4 sensors as an obvious expedient to control emulating.
Though silent to 6 sensors, the Examiner notes that merely duplicating essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art, especially when there are expected results. In the instant case, duplicating read head detectors to have 6, produces the obvious result of being able to emulate at more regions of the card, such as the card being able to be read regardless of orientation into a reader.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./Hodama/Narendra et al., as discussed above, in view of Reppermund (US 20040011877).
Re claims 11-12, the teachings of Goodman et al./Hodama/Narendra et al. have been discussed above.
Goodman et al./Hodama/Narendra et al. teach sensors on each end of a stripe and on both sides, but are silent to specifically reciting the 4 and 6 sensors.
Reppermund teaches (FIG. 3+) 4 stripes (2 on each side) so that the card stripe can be read regardless of insertion direction.
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 Goodman et al./Hodama/Narendra et al. with those of Reppermund et al. in order to have at least the 6 sensors, such as one on each end of the stripe, so that the card can emulate the magnetic data to a reader, regardless of orientation, for convenience/ease of use.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./Hodama, as discussed above, in view of Poidomani et al. (US 20070034700).
Re claims 16-18 and 20, the teachings of Goodman et al. /Hodama have been discussed above.
Goodman et al. /Hodama are silent to magnetic shielding (re claim 20) and are silent to the multiple layer printed circuit board /flexible PCB.
Re claim 20, Poidomani et al. teaches shielding (paragraph [0101]). Re claims 16-18, Poidomani teaches the use of a multiplayer PCB (paragraph [0108]). Flexibility is an obvious expedient for durability.
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 Goodman et al. /Hodama with those of Poidomani et al. to reduce interference and to conform with accepted manufacturing practices for reliability of connections, durability, low costs, ease of assembly, etc., especially as they appear to be able to functional coplanar in the prior art.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al. (US 20020043566) in view of Hayama et al. (US 20070200708) and Hodama (US 4786791).
Goodman et al. teaches a card with a first longer side and a second side, a dynamic communications device operable to communicate stripe data, a first region with a parallel segment, a second region with a perpendicular segment, and a third region with what appears to be a 45-degree angle segment (FIG. 1+). The Examiner has interpreted that as FIG. 1+ shows loops at 30, that there are parallel and perpendicular segments (sides) and that the corners roughly appear to be 45-degree angle segments. Goodman et al. teaches a processor to control the card (12/14). The sides of the emulator read on the perpendicular and parallel sides. The corners of the emulator appear to be at 45 degrees. When the general conditions of the claim are taught by the prior art, discovering/using a specific range/value involves only routine skill in the art, especially when absent unexpected results. It appears that both the prior art and the instant application would both function equally well with the orientation of Goodman et al., which would appear to be 45 degrees, to provide the expected results of the emulating. One would have been motivated to have a 45-degree section for expected results such as durability/ size constraints / shape constraints/ system constraints/ aesthetics/ antenna performance/ ease of manufacturing, etc. Goodman et al. teaches (paragraph [0027]) that with most emulators, the magnetic stripe of a conventional card is not physically replicated but it is rather the information on it that is simulated to allow the information to be read by a conventional card reader, suggesting that it is known and obvious not to include the physical stripe but just the emulating of the data to emulate a traditional striped card. Thus, the lack of a stripe is taught.
Though silent to explicitly reciting 45 degrees, shaping an antenna is obvious to the skilled artisan, particularly since no evidence has been cited in the record citing criticality and/or which perfects the invention to provide a functional advantage, etc. One might be motivated to have a linear 45-degree corner for durability/ size constraints / shape constraints/ system constraints/ aesthetics/ antenna performance/ ease of manufacturing, etc. Further, minute shaping of corners, or linear sections, may not significantly affect the coupling as its criticality has not been established, and as functional equivalents, it appears that the prior art would function equally well with the rounded corners or linear 45-degree corners. Further, shaping and the electrical or magnetic results of it, whether it be deleterious or advantageous, are compensated for by other portions of the coil, etc., and therefore changing the shape would have been obvious to produce expected results.
Goodman et al. teaches rounded corners and silent to linear 45 degrees as recited.
Hayama et al. teaches that corners can be 45 degrees or curved (FIG. 7).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings
for expected results, such as durability/ size constraints / shape constraints/ system constraints/ aesthetics/ antenna performance/ ease of manufacturing, etc.
Goodman et al. / Hayama et al. teaches mimicking a magnetic stripe card above, but is silent to serially communicating the data (to a reader).
Hodama teaches serial output (FIG. 1+) wherein the serial output of line 20 connects to the driver circuit to drive the coils. Hodama does not have a magnetic stripe.
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 Goodman et al. with those of Hodama.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to mimic conventional magnetic cards.
Re the limitation that an electromagnetic field of the first wire (segment) and an electromagnetic field of said third conductive wire segment are not operable to communicate with a read head of a magnetic stripe reader while said second conductive wire segment is operable to communicate with said read head, the Examiner notes that the emulator of the prior teaches an emulator with the parallel, perpendicular, and forty-five-degree angle segments. Accordingly, for the limitations of “not operable to communicate” are interpreted as being met as the recited structure is taught and therefore the structure is interpreted as able to perform the limitations as claimed.
Alternatively, whether or not these sections are “operable” to communicate while the second wire (segment) communicates, appears to be a limitation of the reader and not the structure of the card itself. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that such a limitation about “not operable” to communicate is therefore obviated based on geometry for some reader configuration, such a reader configuration being one that passes over the x-axis field section 1511 would result in a read head communicating with an x-axis field as it passes over it and not operable to communicate with the 45 degree and first wire segment 1531 due to the reduced field that those sections provide that would not be able to be sensed by the read head/ an incorrect field orientation not being operable to communicate with the read head. As such limitations appear to be drawn to the read head/ reader structure and not the card itself, the prior art is interpreted as teaching the claimed structure limitations of the card and thus reads on the claimed limitations as the limitations about not operable are implicit based on geometry for some reader configuration.
Re the newly added limitations of a first, active region operable to produce an EM field that communicates with the read head and the second and third non-active regions are not operable to be read by a read head when the card is swiped, the Examiner notes that such limitations appears to be drawn to limitations of a reader structure, and are not germane to the card structure claim itself. The Examiner has interpreted that the card limitations structure is taught by the prior art as discussed above via the above teachings of the horizontal, vertical, and chamfered regions. The prior art structure is interpreted as capable of having the active and non-active regions to communicate and such regions are communicate with the read head and also be not-operable to be read, depending on the type of reader structure that would be provided. As the claim is a card claim, the prior art teachings support the structure of the card. The intended use of the card in a particular system with a particular reader that results in the claimed active/ non-active regions that are operable to produce an EM field and not operable to be read are not germane to the card structure. The prior art teachings teach the card structure limitations which are operable to function as claimed, given this is a device (card) claim and not a system claim. Though the functionality of the active and non-active regions are not explicitly taught by the prior art, such limitations are structurally taught, and since they are based on specific reader embodiment, the reader used is not germane to the card structure. The structure of the prior art therefore reads on the card limitations and is operable to function as recited, given that the reader is not germane to the card claims and is not recited in the card claim.
Re claim 3, Goodman et al. teaches a battery 16.
Re claim 4, as discussed above, Goodman et al. /Hodama teach a battery and a processor. Further, Goodman et al. teaches a power switch 18 and keyboard (paragraph [0029]). Though silent to a button, the Examiner note that in light of a power switch, the use of a button would have been an obvious expedient as an alternative means to turn on a device, and the selection could be motivated by design variation, cost, aesthetics, form factor, feel, etc. Alternatively, a key of a keyboard can be interpreted as a button.
Re claim 6, FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al. shows more than 1 communications device.
Re claims 7-10, FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al. teaches such limitations, wherein a “segment” is a part of the top, side, and angled wire sections that meet the recited length relationship, and further, based on the number of loops, taking into consideration desired application, data usage, security, system constraints, etc.
Re claim 15, the regions are regions of a coil (FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al.).
Re claim 19, though Goodman et al. is electronic, it is silent to driving circuits. Blossom teaches driving circuits (58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Goodman et al. with those of Blossom to ensure the emulator is driven to mimic magnetic stripe cards.
Re claim 21, for clarification the Examiner references FIG. 2 of Goodman et al. The first end of the 3rd segment is interpreted as the portion of the roughly 45 degree angle segment that touches the 1st wire segment (segment parallel to the long side of the card), at the first end of the first segment, and the 2nd end of the 3rd segment is the other end of the roughly 45 degree segment that touches a first end of the second segment, located at the intersection of the roughly 45 degree section and the wire segment parallel to the shorter card side and Hayama teaches 45 degree corners as discussed above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./Hodama, as discussed above, in view of Blossom.
Re claim 5, the teachings of Goodman et al. /Hodama have been discussed above, but are silent to a display.
Blossom teaches the use of a display (abstract).
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 Goodman et al. / Hodama with those of Blossom to display card related data.
Claims 2 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./Hodama, as discussed above, in view of Narendra et al. as discussed above.
Goodman et al. /Hodama are silent to the detectors as discussed above, including processor controlling the card.
Narendra teaches the two detectors and a processor as well for controlling/executing functions on the card, as known in the art (FIG. 4).
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 Goodman et al. /Blossom with those of Narendra et al.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to separately control what tracks are communicated.
The teachings of Goodman et al. /Hodama have been discussed above.
Goodman et al. /Hodama are silent to first through sixth read head detectors.
Narendra et al. teaches that a swipe sensor can be at the start and end of the magnetic stripe area (col 3, lines 40), which teaches two read head sensors. Narendra et al. then goes on to recite that swipe sensors can be on one or both sides of the card (col 3, lines 45+). Thus, the Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the additional 2 read head sensors on the other side of the card, as supported by the teachings of Narendra et al. It would have been obvious to do so to communicate data to the read head even if the card was inserted with the stripe facing the wrong way, and thus have up to 4 sensors as an obvious expedient to control emulating.
Though silent to 6 sensors, the Examiner notes that merely duplicating essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art, especially when there are expected results. In the instant case, duplicating read head detectors to have 6, produces the obvious result of being able to emulate at more regions of the card, such as the card being able to be read regardless of orientation into a reader.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./Hodama/Narendra et al., as discussed above, in view of Reppermund (US 20040011877).
Re claims 11-12, the teachings of Goodman et al./Hodama/Narendra et al. have been discussed above.
Goodman et al./Hodama/Narendra et al. teach sensors on each end of a stripe and on both sides, but are silent to specifically reciting the 4 and 6 sensors.
Reppermund teaches (FIG. 3+) 4 stripes (2 on each side) so that the card stripe can be read regardless of insertion direction.
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 Goodman et al./Hodama/Narendra et al. with those of Reppermund et al. in order to have at least the 6 sensors, such as one on each end of the stripe, so that the card can emulate the magnetic data to a reader, regardless of orientation, for convenience/ease of use.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman et al./Hodama, as discussed above, in view of Poidomani et al. (US 20070034700).
Re claims 16-18 and 20, the teachings of Goodman et al. /Hodama have been discussed above.
Goodman et al. /Hodama are silent to magnetic shielding (re claim 20) and are silent to the multiple layer printed circuit board /flexible PCB.
Re claim 20, Poidomani et al. teaches shielding (paragraph [0101]). Re claims 16-18, Poidomani teaches the use of a multiplayer PCB (paragraph [0108]). Flexibility is an obvious expedient for durability.
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 Goodman et al. /Hodama with those of Poidomani et al. to reduce interference and to conform with accepted manufacturing practices for reliability of connections, durability, low costs, ease of assembly, etc., especially as they appear to be able to functional coplanar in the prior art.
Claims 1, 3-10, 15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blossom in view of Goodman et al.
The teachings of Blossom have been discussed above, including a serial magnetic stripe emulator.
Blossom is silent to the arrangement of the wires and to no stripe.
Goodman et al., as discussed above, teaches a card with a first longer side and a second side, a dynamic communications device operable to communicate stripe data, a first region with a parallel segment, a second region with a perpendicular segment, and a third region with what appears to be a 45-degree angle segment (FIG. 1+), as discussed above. Additionally, Goodman et al. teaches not using a magnetic stripe, for expected results, as discussed above.
Though silent to reciting 45 degrees explicitly, shaping an antenna is obvious to the skilled artisan, particularly since no evidence has been cited in the record citing criticality and/or which perfects the invention to provide a functional advantage, etc. One might be motivated to have a linear 45-degree corner for durability/ size constraints / shape constraints/ system constraints/ aesthetics/ antenna performance/ ease of manufacturing, etc. Further, minute shaping of corners, or linear sections, may not significantly affect the coupling as its criticality has not been established, and as functional equivalents, it appears that the prior art would function equally well with the rounded corners or linear 45-degree corners. Further, shaping and the electrical or magnetic results of it, whether it be deleterious or advantageous, are compensated for by other portions of the coil, etc., and therefore changing the shape would have been obvious to produce expected results. One would have been motivated to have 45-degree sections for the expected results of durability/ size constraints / shape constraints/ system constraints/ aesthetics/ antenna performance/ ease of manufacturing, etc.
The limitations regarding the wire segment lengths and their relationships (limitations) has been discussed above
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to have an emulator depending on the application (see paragraph [0028]) +.
Re the limitation that an electromagnetic field of the first wire (segment) and an electromagnetic field of said third conductive wire segment are not operable to communicate with a read head of a magnetic stripe reader while said second conductive wire segment is operable to communicate with said read head, the Examiner notes that the emulator of the prior teaches an emulator with the parallel, perpendicular, and forty-five-degree angle segments. Accordingly, for the limitations of “not operable to communicate” are interpreted as being met as the recited structure is taught and therefore the structure is interpreted as able to perform the limitations as claimed.
Alternatively, whether or not these sections are “operable” to communicate while the second wire (segment) communicates, appears to be a limitation of the reader and not the structure of the card itself. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that such a limitation about “not operable” to communicate is therefore obviated based on geometry for some reader configuration, such a reader configuration being one that passes over the x-axis field section 1511 would result in a read head communicating with an x-axis field as it passes over it and not operable to communicate with the 45 degree and first wire segment 1531 due to the reduced field that those sections provide that would not be able to be sensed by the read head/ an incorrect field orientation not being operable to communicate with the read head. As such limitations appear to be drawn to the read head/ reader structure and not the card itself, the prior art is interpreted as teaching the claimed structure limitations of the card and thus reads on the claimed limitations as the limitations about not operable are implicit based on geometry for some reader configuration.
Re the newly added limitations of a first, active region operable to produce an EM field that communicates with the read head and the second and third non-active regions are not operable to be read by a read head when the card is swiped, the Examiner notes that such limitations appears to be drawn to limitations of a reader structure, and are not germane to the card structure claim itself. The Examiner has interpreted that the card limitations structure is taught by the prior art as discussed above via the above teachings of the horizontal, vertical, and chamfered regions. The prior art structure is interpreted as capable of having the active and non-active regions to communicate and such regions are communicate with the read head and also be not-operable to be read, depending on the type of reader structure that would be provided. As the claim is a card claim, the prior art teachings support the structure of the card. The intended use of the card in a particular system with a particular reader that results in the claimed active/ non-active regions that are operable to produce an EM field and not operable to be read are not germane to the card structure. The prior art teachings teach the card structure limitations which are operable to function as claimed, given this is a device (card) claim and not a system claim. Though the functionality of the active and non-active regions are not explicitly taught by the prior art, such limitations are structurally taught, and since they are based on specific reader embodiment, the reader used is not germane to the card structure. The structure of the prior art therefore reads on the card limitations and is operable to function as recited, given that the reader is not germane to the card claims and is not recited in the card claim.
Re claim 3, Blossom teaches a battery 57.
Re claim 4, as discussed above, Blossom teaches a battery and a processor (52) and buttons (abstract). Further, Goodman et al. teaches a power switch 18 and keyboard (paragraph [0029]).
Re claim 5, the teachings of Goodman et al. /Blossom have been discussed above. Blossom teaches the use of a display (abstract) as an expedient to display card related data.
Re claim 6, FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al. shows more than 1 communications device motivated by programming.
Re claims 7-10, FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al. teaches such limitations, wherein a “segment” is a part of the top, side, and angled wire sections that meet the recited length relationship, and further, based on the number of loops, taking into consideration desired application, data usage, security, system constraints, etc.
Re claim 15, the regions are regions of a coil (FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al.).
Re claim 19, Blossom teaches driving circuits (58) to help emulate magnetic cards as known in the art.
Re claim 21, for clarification the Examiner references FIG. 2 of Goodman et al. The first end of the 3rd segment is interpreted as the portion of the roughly 45-degree angle segment that touches the 1st wire segment (segment parallel to the long side of the card), at the first end of the first segment, and the 2nd end of the 3rd segment is the other end of the roughly 45-degree segment that touches a first end of the second segment, located at the intersection of the roughly 45-degree section and the wire segment parallel to the shorter card side.
Claims 2 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blossom/ Goodman et al., as discussed above, in view of Narendra et al. as discussed above.
Blossom/ Goodman et al. are silent to the detectors as discussed above, including processor controlling the card.
Narendra teaches the two detectors and a processor as well for controlling/executing functions on the card, as known in the art (FIG. 4).
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 Blossom/ Goodman et al. with those of Narendra et al.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to separately control what tracks are communicated.
The teachings of Blossom/ Goodman et al. have been discussed above.
Blossom/ Goodman et al. silent to first through sixth read head detectors.
Narendra et al. teaches that a swipe sensor can be at the start and end of the magnetic stripe area (col 3, lines 40), which teaches two read head sensors. Narendra et al. then goes on to recite that swipe sensors can be on one or both sides of the card (col 3, lines 45+). Thus, the Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the additional 2 read head sensors on the other side of the card, as supported by the teachings of Narendra et al. It would have been obvious to do so to communicate data to the read head even if the card was inserted with the stripe facing the wrong way, and thus have up to 4 sensors as an obvious expedient to control emulating.
Though silent to 6 sensors, the Examiner notes that merely duplicating essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art, especially when there are expected results. In the instant case, duplicating read head detectors to have 6, produces the obvious result of being able to emulate at more regions of the card, such as the card being able to be read regardless of orientation into a reader.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blossom/ Goodman et al./ Narendra et al., as discussed above, in view of Reppermund (US 20040011877).
Re claims 11-12, the teachings of Blossom/ Goodman et al. / Narendra et al. have been discussed above.
Blossom/ Goodman et al. / Narendra et al. teach sensors on each end of a stripe and on both sides, but are silent to specifically reciting the 4 and 6 sensors.
Reppermund teaches (FIG. 3+) 4 stripes (2 on each side) so that the card stripe can be read regardless of insertion direction.
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 Blossom/ Goodman et al. / Narendra et al. with those of Reppermund et al. in order to have at least the 6 sensors, such as one on each end of the stripe, so that the card can emulate the magnetic data to a reader, regardless of orientation, for convenience/ease of use.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blossom/ Goodman et al., as discussed above, in view of Poidomani et al. (US 20070034700).
Re claims 16-18 and 20, the teachings of Blossom/ Goodman et al. have been discussed above.
Blossom/ Goodman et al. are silent to magnetic shielding (re claim 20) and are silent to the multiple layer printed circuit board /flexible PCB.
Re claim 20, Poidomani et al. teaches shielding (paragraph [0101]). Re claims 16-18, Poidomani teaches the use of a multiplayer PCB (paragraph [0108]). Flexibility is an obvious expedient for durability.
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 Blossom/ Goodman et al. with those of Poidomani et al. to reduce interference and to conform with accepted manufacturing practices for reliability of connections, durability, low costs, ease of assembly, etc., especially as they appear to be able to functional coplanar in the prior art.
Claims 1, 3-10, 15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blossom, as discussed above, in view of Goodman et al. and Sakama (US 20080035741).
The teachings of Blossom have been discussed above, including a serial magnetic stripe emulator.
Blossom is silent to the arrangement of the wires and to no stripe.
Goodman et al., as discussed above, teaches a card with a first longer side and a second side, a dynamic communications device operable to communicate stripe data, a first region with a parallel segment, a second region with a perpendicular segment, and a third region with what appears to be a 45-degree angle segment (FIG. 1+), as discussed above. Additionally, Goodman et al. teaches not using a magnetic stripe, for expected results, as discussed above.
Though silent to explicitly reciting 45 degrees, shaping an antenna is obvious to the skilled artisan, particularly since no evidence has been cited in the record citing criticality and/or which perfects the invention to provide a functional advantage, etc. One might be motivated to have a linear 45-degree corner for durability/ size constraints / shape constraints/ system constraints/ aesthetics/ antenna performance/ ease of manufacturing, etc. Further, minute shaping of corners, or linear sections, may not significantly affect the coupling as its criticality has not been established, and as functional equivalents, it appears that the prior art would function equally well with the rounded corners or linear 45-degree corners. Further, shaping and the electrical or magnetic results of it, whether it be deleterious or advantageous, are compensated for by other portions of the coil, etc., and therefore changing the shape would have been obvious to produce expected results.
The limitations regarding the wire segment lengths and their relationships (limitations) has been discussed above
Nonetheless, Sakama teaches 45-degree linear corners (FIG. 5d).
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 expected results, system constraints, frequency response/antenna functionality, ease of manufacture, size/shape constraints, etc.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to have an emulator depending on the application (see paragraph [0028]) +.
Re the limitation that an electromagnetic field of the first wire (segment) and an electromagnetic field of said third conductive wire segment are not operable to communicate with a read head of a magnetic stripe reader while said second conductive wire segment is operable to communicate with said read head, the Examiner notes that the emulator of the prior teaches an emulator with the parallel, perpendicular, and forty-five-degree angle segments. Accordingly, for the limitations of “not operable to communicate” are interpreted as being met as the recited structure is taught and therefore the structure is interpreted as able to perform the limitations as claimed.
Alternatively, whether or not these sections are “operable” to communicate while the second wire (segment) communicates, appears to be a limitation of the reader and not the structure of the card itself. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that such a limitation about “not operable” to communicate is therefore obviated based on geometry for some reader configuration, such a reader configuration being one that passes over the x-axis field section 1511 would result in a read head communicating with an x-axis field as it passes over it and not operable to communicate with the 45 degree and first wire segment 1531 due to the reduced field that those sections provide that would not be able to be sensed by the read head/ an incorrect field orientation not being operable to communicate with the read head. As such limitations appear to be drawn to the read head/ reader structure and not the card itself, the prior art is interpreted as teaching the claimed structure limitations of the card and thus reads on the claimed limitations as the limitations about not operable are implicit based on geometry for some reader configuration.
Re the newly added limitations of a first, active region operable to produce an EM field that communicates with the read head and the second and third non-active regions are not operable to be read by a read head when the card is swiped, the Examiner notes that such limitations appears to be drawn to limitations of a reader structure, and are not germane to the card structure claim itself. The Examiner has interpreted that the card limitations structure is taught by the prior art as discussed above via the above teachings of the horizontal, vertical, and chamfered regions. The prior art structure is interpreted as capable of having the active and non-active regions to communicate and such regions are communicate with the read head and also be not-operable to be read, depending on the type of reader structure that would be provided. As the claim is a card claim, the prior art teachings support the structure of the card. The intended use of the card in a particular system with a particular reader that results in the claimed active/ non-active regions that are operable to produce an EM field and not operable to be read are not germane to the card structure. The prior art teachings teach the card structure limitations which are operable to function as claimed, given this is a device (card) claim and not a system claim. Though the functionality of the active and non-active regions are not explicitly taught by the prior art, such limitations are structurally taught, and since they are based on specific reader embodiment, the reader used is not germane to the card structure. The structure of the prior art therefore reads on the card limitations and is operable to function as recited, given that the reader is not germane to the card claims and is not recited in the card claim.
Re claim 3, Blossom teaches a battery 57.
Re claim 4, as discussed above, Blossom teaches a battery and a processor (52) and buttons (abstract). Further, Goodman et al. teaches a power switch 18 and keyboard (paragraph [0029]).
Re claim 5, the teachings of Goodman et al. /Blossom have been discussed above. Blossom teaches the use of a display (abstract) to provide card related data.
Reclaim 6, FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al. shows more than 1 communications device motivated by programming.
Re claims 7-10, FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al. teaches such limitations, wherein a “segment” is a part of the top, side, and angled wire sections that meet the recited length relationship, and further, based on the number of loops, taking into consideration desired application, data usage, security, system constraints, etc.
Reclaim 15, the regions are regions of a coil (FIG. 1+ of Goodman et al.).
Reclaim 19, Blossom teaches driving circuits (58) to help emulate magnetic cards as known in the art.
Re claim 21, for clarification the Examiner references FIG. 2 of Goodman et al. The first end of the 3rd segment is interpreted as the portion of the 45 degree angle segment that touches the 1st wire segment (segment parallel to the long side of the card), at the first end of the first segment, and the 2nd end of the 3rd segment is the other end of the roughly 45 degree segment that touches a first end of the second segment, located at the intersection of the roughly 45 degree section and the wire segment parallel to the shorter card side, wherein Sakama teaches the use of 45 degree corners as discussed above.
Claims 2 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blossom/ Goodman et al./ Sakama, as discussed above, in view of Narendra et al. as discussed above.
Blossom/ Goodman et al. / Sakama are silent to the detectors as discussed above, including processor controlling the card.
Narendra teaches the two detectors and a processor as well for controlling/executing functions on the card, as known in the art (FIG. 4).
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 Blossom/ Goodman et al. with those of Narendra et al.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to separately control what tracks are communicated.
The teachings of Blossom/ Goodman et al. /Sakama have been discussed above.
Blossom/ Goodman et al. silent to first through sixth read head detectors.
Narendra et al. teaches that a swipe sensor can be at the start and end of the magnetic stripe area (col 3, lines 40), which teaches two read head sensors. Narendra et al. then goes on to recite that swipe sensors can be on one or both sides of the card (col 3, lines 45+). Thus the Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the additional 2 read head sensors on the other side of the card, as supported by the teachings of Narendra et al. It would have been obvious to do so to communicate data to the read head even if the card was inserted with the stripe facing the wrong way, and thus have up to 4 sensors as an obvious expedient to control emulating.
Though silent to 6 sensors, the Examiner notes that merely duplicating essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art, especially when there are expected results. In the instant case, duplicating read head detectors to have 6, produces the obvious result of being able to emulate at more regions of the card, such as the card being able to be read regardless of orientation into a reader.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blossom/ Goodman et al./ Narendra et al./ Sakama, as discussed above, in view of Reppermund (US 20040011877).
Re claims 11-12, the teachings of Blossom/ Goodman et al. / Sakama/ Narendra et al. have been discussed above.
Blossom/ Goodman et al./ Sakama/ Narendra et al. teach sensors on each end of a stripe and on both sides, but are silent to specifically reciting the 4 and 6 sensors.
Reppermund teaches (FIG. 3+) 4 stripes (2 on each side) so that the card stripe can be read regardless of insertion direction.
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 Blossom/ Goodman et al. / Sakama/ Narendra et al. with those of Reppermund et al. in order to have at least the 6 sensors, such as one on each end of the stripe, so that the card can emulate the magnetic data to a reader, regardless of orientation, for convenience/ease of use.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blossom/ Goodman et al./Sakama, as discussed above, in view of Poidomani et al. (US 20070034700).
Re claims 16-18 and 20, the teachings of Blossom/ Goodman et al. / Sakama have been discussed above.
Blossom/ Goodman et al. are silent to magnetic shielding (re claim 20) and are silent to the multiple layer printed circuit board /flexible PCB.
Re claim 20, Poidomani et al. teaches shielding (paragraph [0101]). Re claims 16-18, Poidomani teaches the use of a multiplayer PCB (paragraph [0108]). Flexibility is an obvious expedient for durability.
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 Blossom/ Goodman et al. / Sakama with those of Poidomani et al. to reduce interference and to conform with accepted manufacturing practices for reliability of connections, durability, low costs, ease of assembly, etc., especially as they appear to be able to functional coplanar in the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the rejections above which cite art teaching the structure of the first, second, and third regions. The Examiner notes that the limitations regarding “active”, “non-active”, “communicates”, and “not operable to be read” are interpreted to be taught by the structure of the prior art. Those limitations are drawn to a reader structure, which is not germane to the card claim limitations. The structure of the prior art is interpreted as operable to function as the claim recites, depending on a reader, which is not part of the card claims.
The Examiner maintains the 112 rejections above, noting that the claim is drawn to a card, not a card system with a reader. Therefore, limitations to a reader that impact which fields are communicated/ received by the reader, are not germane to the card structure itself. The emulation circuit comprising a single conductive wire is interpreted to produce fields from the single conductive wire and is interpreted as having all three segments which are operable to function as recited. Whether or not fields are received based on the card reader orientation/ dimensions/ sensitivity/ etc. with respect to the card, is a limitation based on a hypothetical card reader structure, not the card itself. As such, card reader limitations are not germane to the card. The prior art is interpreted to read on the card structure as required by the claim, and is operable to function in as described in the presence of such a hypothetical reader. If the Applicant wishes to have a reader/ reader limitation considered in the claim, changing to a system including a card and a reader could be helpful.
When interpreting the pending claims as card claims (not system) it is indefinite how a continuous wire that is used for emulating a magnetic stripe would not be operable to have its different segments produce/ communicate an electromagnetic field, as recited in the claims. While a hypothetical reader and its orientation may not effectively communicate with a segment based on an orientation, this is not a limitation of the card but of the reader itself, and the card is interpreted to be taught by the prior art.
The Examiner notes that US 5716451 has teaching for those skilled in the art, in col. 14, last paragraph about shaping, US 7994715, looking at Fig. 2B, then at Fig. 2C shows the shaping limitations, there are teachings in the paragraph bridging columns 3 and 4 of 6173900 (and in to the first paragraph of col. 4), and US 7876277 teaches “linear trimming lines” 21-23 at the corner are at 45 degrees, which are examples supporting changing of shape.
Conclusion
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