DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 54-63, 66-71, 73-80, and 83-91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al. (US 20110266354) in view of Lambeth (US 2004/0058196).
Re claim 54, Poidomani et al. teaches a card with a first conductive coil encompassing a soft magnetic material (FIG. 13+ and paragraphs [0120] + where HyMu 80 is a soft magnetic material as are soft ferromagnetic cores). Soft magnetic material cores such as soft ferromagnetic cores are notoriously well known in the art with low coercivity and high permeability to provide expected results as applied to the magnetic fields. As a property of soft ferromagnetic materials (cores) their magneto crystalline anisotropy and magnetorestriction constant is low. Soft magnetic cores in such systems are obvious for high permeability (increase fields), low coercivity (doesn’t stay magnetized), and is suitable for card applications.
Though silent to reluctance of the soft magnetic material (core) being controlled by at least one form of uniaxial anisotropy, the Examiner notes that anisotropy is a dependence of energy levels on a direction. For example, magnetic moments being biased towards one particular direction, such as the easy axis (parallel thereto), results in a material that has uniaxial anisotropy in that direction. Anisotropy of a material can be controlled by sample shape, crystalline orientation, strain, or induced by processing conditions such as annealing in the presence of an applied field.
Nonetheless, Lambeth teaches that good performance in device applications is dependent upon there being a single preferred magnetic orientation or anisotropy direction and so in the manufacturing process one strives to achieve a desired uniaxial anisotropy (paragraph [0005]+). This is interpreted obviating the presence of uniaxial anisotropy for magnetic devices, such as exemplified by easy axis of long cores in the length direction. Anisotropy can be achieved by as annealing, shape, magnetocrystalline, (paragraph [0017] +) to produce desirable effects.
In the case of the soft magnetic core, though silent to explicitly reciting that the core in a uniaxial material, it would have been obvious to have the easy axis of magnetization such as the long axis, as is known in the art to have high permeability (low coercivity), to have an effective core that is longer than thick, such as in a card, wherein the length is the longer dimension, consistent with uniaxial materials used in similar applications such as magnetic stripes. Therefore, it would have been obvious in such instances that reluctance would be based on uniaxial anisotropy due to the presence of an easy axis (energetically favorable direction of magnetization, such as along the length of the core), and thus provides a reluctance based on uniaxial anisotropy/ there is some reluctance (reluctance is different in one direction) and thus the uniaxial anisotropy impacts it/controls it. Also, as permeability is part of the equation for reluctance, the reluctance is based on anisotropy. Finally, even by making/introducing anisotropy to a non-oriented material anisotropic, one can impact reluctance.
Accordingly, based on uniaxial anisotropy of a soft magnetic core having an easy axis such as along the length (longer) axis/direction, this impacts the reluctance when compared to a core that has no preferential direction for a magnetic moment, such as a materials with magnetic isotropy, in contrast to magnetic anisotropic materials which can be easier or harder to magnetize depending on which way the object is rotated and thus this uniaxial anisotropy results in a reluctance that is different when compared to a core that magnetizes easier along a different axis or those that have no preferred direction, and thus reads on the claimed limitations of a desired reluctance based on uniaxial anisotropy. Also the Reluctance is based on the permeability of the core as well.
Additionally/ alternatively, the Examiner notes that even if it was not a uniaxial core (different axially based soft magnetic material) it would have been obvious for the material to have an easy axis so as to have a preferred direction (and therefore a hard direction) to magnetize in order to program the stripe, thus reluctance based on one direction (uniaxial) because uniaxial anisotropy is not limited to an inherent material property but can be interpreted as a state of the material.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to achieve a desired/expected performance (see paragraph [0005] and [0008] of Lambeth supporting the motivation).
To clarify, the teachings of Poidomani et al. teach a soft magnetic material at 166 (with high permeability and low coercive force). This soft magnetic material is wrapped or encompassed by a conductive coil (wire 164). The soft magnetic material 166 has a reluctance (property of magnetic materials). The reluctance is intpereted as dependent on at least one form of uniaxial anisotropy in that the long core 166 is interpreted as having an easy axis along its length and thus has uniaxial anisotropy or if the core is a different axially based material, it still would have been obvious to have a preferred (easy) magnetization axis and therefore a different direction/ angled/ hard axis because the uniaxial anisotropy can be seen as a state of the material and not an inherent property, and thus an easy and hard axis are obviated by programming of the core, which supports reluctance based on uniaxial anisotropy. Lambeth et al. is used as a secondary reference to reinforce good performance being achieved.
Re claim 55, the Examiner notes that conventionally, absent an applied field, that the hard axis of a stripe is interpreted as the axis normal to the length of the core (such as when the length is longer than the width and the easy axis is the length direction), which is interpreted to read upon the claimed limitations, as this is interpreted as the long axis of the coil that wraps the core, and/ or as discussed above wherein the uniaxial is not required as an inherent property but is a state of the material.
Re claim 56, though silent, it would have been obvious for the reluctance of the read head to be less than the reluctance of the magnetic material so that the read head picks up signals from the card, as the data to flow (be read) by travelling the path of least resistance/reluctance, as known in the art. Further it would have been obvious as a matter of system constraints to set known values for known variables to obtain expected results (operability). Even further, the Examiner notes that the claim is drawn to the reluctance of a read head, when the claim is drawn to a card, and therefore is not germane to the card structure itself. Even further, it would have been obvious for the card to have higher reluctance so that the data encoded thereon is not influenced by external magnets so as to damage or erase data.
Re claim 57, the Examiner notes that a limitation that one thing is comparable (able to be compared) to another is not a positive limitation regarding the device itself. Different reluctances can be compared to teach other and does not recite structure. Alternatively, based on system constraints, it would have been obvious to have a comparable (similar) relationship in order to obtain a desired result, such as the desired flux or ability of the read head to pick up signals. Further it would have been obvious as a matter of system constraints to set known values for known variables to obtain expected results.
Re claim 58, the Examiner notes that soft magnetic materials have low magnetocrystalline anisotropy and as the core is not spherical it has shape anisotropy via the creating of the easy axis and thus is interpreted to have at least one of magnetocrystalline and shape anisotropy, and since the core is not spherical they are uniaxial via the long and short (easy and hard) axis. With the shape/geometry being longer than wider, the easy axis is in the length direction by geometry. Further the Examiner notes that the method of forming the soft magnetic material such as stress or annealing is understood to impart anisotropy as well, via strain application or rapid changes in temperature (stress/annealing), wherein the method of forming is not germane to the patentability of the device itself. Simply put, the processes of annealing and stress/stain impart the uniaxial anisotropy which adjusts/influences the reluctance in terms of ensuring communication of data. Shape is determined by the emulator/core having a length longer than a width, and as discussed above at least one of field anneal, magnetocrystalline and stress induced has been discussed above as known ways of obtaining the uniaxial anisotropy. Therefore, the combination is obviated by conventional practices.
Re claim 59, the limitations have been discussed above wherein the Examiner notes that annealing in the presence of an applied field can change the easy axis easy axis is in the width direction, with the long axis being the hard axis direction (Lambeth, paragraph [0015]).
Re claims 60-61, the Examiner notes that the method of forming the core is not germane to the patentability of the device itself. As the core (soft magnetic material) is taught by the prior art, how it is formed (field annealed or stress induced) is not germane. The use of known manufacturing methods to produce known materials with known properties (desirous for magnetism) is well within the ordinary skill in the art. The use of annealing/stressing/quenching/etc. is known methods for form ferromagnetic materials and their selection for a desired magnetic effect (easy axis and hard axis) is based on system constraints. As discussed above, the applied field during annealing can change the direction of the easy axis (to the direction of the field applied during annealing).
Re claim 62, the core is interpreted as ribbon shaped as its length is substantially larger than its width, which is known to result in an easy axis in the width direction (normal to the long axis of the conductive coil/hard axis) such as to permit easy reading/communication to a reader.
Re claims 58-61, 66-67, 75-78, and 83-84, the Examiner notes that limitations relating to controlling of the reluctance are not germane to the patentability of the device itself (method of forming).
Re claim 63, FIG. 12+ teaches separate coils and cores which read on the limitation. Therefore, since the structure is taught, a circulatory anisotropy arrangement is interpreted as being formed. The method of forming is not germane to the device. Since the prior art teaches the claimed structure it is interpreted to read on the claim.
Re claim 66, the Examiner notes that the magnetic response is defined as the M/H, which in the case of the uniaxial anisotropy in which the easy axis is in the width direction and the hard axis in the long direction, is a linear relationship with the permeability of the soft magnetic material being very large. Simply put, there is a linear relationship due to how the magnetic response is defined.
Re claim 67, the limitations have been discussed above wherein the magnetic domains are aligned across the width of the conductor and the length direction is the hard axis and the width is the easy axis. Though silent to the magnetization as recited, the Examiner notes that as the recited structure is taught, it would have been obvious that the recited structure would behave as recited (see MPEP 2112.01 where structure recited in the reference being substantially the same as that in the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent). Therefore, properties or behavior (response to the current flow as claimed) are believed to be supported by the structure of the prior art.
Re claim 68, the stripe emulating is dynamic and therefore not static.
Re claim 69, the abstract and FIG. 4 teach a processor. As the processor controls the device and current is run to generate the magnetic signals, it would have been obvious to control the current to ensure proper operation of the coils. First and second track has been discussed above.
Re claim 70, it is well known that account numbers are stored in duplicate on tracks, and therefore it would have been obvious to do the same as part of mimicking a traditional stripe card (emulation).
Re claim 71 the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 73, the limitations have been discussed above wherein the card is readable by a reader. The issue of controlled reluctance has been discussed above. The prior art above teaches that good performance is desired and that manufacturing is performed to achieved desired uniaxial anisotropy, this obviates the claim “setting” in order to reap the benefits know in the art. Further, as a product by process claim, it need only be anticipated by the product, regardless of the process of forming. The claim does not recite annealing or coil excitation and the structure appears to be met by the prior art teachings.
Re claims 74-76, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 77-78, the limitations have been discussed above re claims 60-61.
Re claim 79-80, the limitations have been discussed above re claims 62-63.
Re claim 83, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 84, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 66.
Re claim 85-89, the limitations have been discussed above re claims 67-71.
Re claims 90-91, the limitations have been discussed above re claims 56-57.
Claims 56-57 and 90-91 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./ Lambeth, as discussed above, in view of Inoue (US 5436441)
The teachings of Poidomani et al./ Lambeth have been discussed above but are silent to the read head reluctance limitations.
The Examiner notes that claims 56-57 are drawn to a card and that limitations regarding a reader read head are not germane to the card itself. Nonetheless, Inoue teaches that the ferrite core 34 of the reader has high permeability and less reluctance than air which causes effective coupling with a card.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to have a low reluctance core of a read head to enable the flow of data from the card, understood to be a higher reluctance, to the reader for reading the data.
Claim 63 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./ Lambeth, as discussed above, in view of Park et al. (US 20040164839) and Jin et al. (US 5956073).
The teachings of Poidomani et al./ Lambeth have been discussed above but are silent to the soft magnetic material being first and second stacked materials.
Park et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 1B+) which has the first and second widths as recited.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to have the core of layers for a less lossy core.
Poidomani et al./ Lambeth/ Park et al. are silent to the easy axis across the width.
Jin et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 2A+) where the easy axis biasing is achieved by an external field or adding an interaction layer.
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for a desired flux or reluctance.
Claims 64-65 and 81-82 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./ Lambeth, as discussed above, in view of Silverman (US 20040035942).
The teachings of Poidomani et al. / Lambeth have been discussed above but are silent to the core being circular and thus having circular anisotropy.
Silverman teaches a round core/conductor in FIG.3.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this to as a matter of design variation for a different and predictable performance, magnetically, wherein the circular nature provides circular anisotropy when the field is induced. Re the setting of the “reluctance” this has been discussed above re claim 64. The prior art above teaches that good performance is desired and that manufacturing is performed to achieved desired uniaxial anisotropy, this obviates the claim “setting” in order to reap the benefits know in the art. Further, as a product by process claim, it need only be anticipated by the product, regardless of the process of forming. The claim does not recite annealing or coil excitation and the structure appears to be met by the prior art teachings.
Claims 64-65 and 81-82 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./ Lambeth, as discussed above, in view of Thompson (US 4236230).
The teachings of Poidomani et al. / Lambeth have been discussed above but are silent to the core being circular and thus having circular anisotropy.
Thompson teaches such limitations (FIG. 1+)
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this to as a matter of design variation for a different and predictable performance, magnetically, wherein the circular nature provides different magnetic outputs, including helical/circular.
The prior art above teaches that good performance is desired and that manufacturing is performed to achieved desired uniaxial anisotropy, this obviates the claim “setting” in order to reap the benefits know in the art. Further, as a product by process claim, it need only be anticipated by the product, regardless of the process of forming. The claim does not recite annealing or coil excitation and the structure appears to be met by the prior art teachings.
Claims 64-65 and 81-82 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./ Lambeth, as discussed above, in view of Osterweil (US 20060283958).
The teachings of Poidomani et al./ Lambeth, have been discussed above but are silent to the core being a round wire. In Poidomani et al./ Lambeth the length of the conductor is interpreted as along the direction of the long axis of the coil.
Nonetheless, Osterweil shows a conductor (core) interpreted as a round wire (FIG. 1+).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to have a desired magnetic field output.
Re claims 65 and 82, the wire as round is interpreted as having circulatory anisotropy.
Claim 72 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./ Lambeth, as discussed above, in view of Hathaway et al. (US 20090048971).
Re claim 72, the teachings of Poidomani et al. / Lambeth have been discussed above but are silent to code generation based on time.
Hathaway et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0023]).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for security.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicants argument that the prior art does not contemplate a device where reluctance depends on anisotropy, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the example of a material with uniaxial anisotropy material, there is a single easy axis for magnetization known as the easy axis, and its easier or less energy intensive to magnetize on this easy axis, which results in low reluctance. On the other hand, magnetizing in a direction normal to the easy axis requires more energy and thus has higher reluctance, and thus reluctance depends on the anisotropy, in the explanation provided above. Thus depending on the direction, and the associated anisotropy, the reluctance varies (different reluctance on the easy axis versus the hard axis based on the uniaxial anisotropy making it easier to magnetize along the easy axis).
Additional Remarks
The Examiner notes that soft magnetic materials conventionally have low coercivity, high permeability, low reluctance, high resistivity, and high saturation magnetization. Magnetic stripes with easy axis being the long direction are intepret3ed to obviate such in magnetic emulators for expected results.
The Examiner notes Faraone et al. as more evidentiary support, of what happens to magnetic fields in magnetically soft (such as for a core) low reluctance materials when they are near a radiator, analogous to the current claims. Specifically it teaches the low reluctance material having a function of providing a preferred path for the magnetic field generator by the radiator, applicable to an emulator, confining the energy and reducing the radiation along one side of the antenna. This again appears to teach the applicants limitations of reluctance based on anisotropy, as there is a reluctance is based on the uniaxial anisotropy (directional dependence). So if you have a uniaxially anisotropic soft material then you necessarily have a material where one axis is easier to magnetize than others due to low reluctance, and the low reluctance material providing a preferred path for the field is the uniaxial anisotropy (directional dependence).
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