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 11-21, 25-29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al. (US 20070034700) in view of Bernstein et al. (US 4795898).
Re claim 11, Poidomani et al. teaches a card comprising a button (28/38), an electronic device operable to communicate first information to a read head of a magnetic stripe reader (emulator 26 and that emulator cards are electronic cards); and first and second sensors detecting the read head (paragraph [0098]). Though silent to specifically reciting capacitive sensors, Poidomani et al. teaches the sensors can take various forms including other alternatives apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art (physical switches, pressure sensors, or other alternatives). Accordingly, the use of capacitive sensors are known in the art as an alternative means for sensing coupling, for example, and therefore would produce expected results. The button (28) receives manual input (pressing) and causes the device to operate for a period of time, as the card is enabled. Re the limitation that the manual input causes said electronic device to operate for a period of time, the Examiner notes that pressing of the buttons/switches (28/38) activates the card/powers on the card/selects accounts/etc. which causes the device to operate for a period of time, as pressing such buttons is part of using the card which includes operation of the electronic device.
Re the limitation that the card comprises a plurality of components, the Examiner note that such limitations are taught (FIG. 2 wherein 30, 32, 38, etc. are interpreted as components), including the components of the sensors and buttons as discussed above. The Examiner notes that the card turns on via pushing of the power button, which enables the card to operate for a period of time in response to the manual input (button pushing), while one component is on, such as the power indication light 30. Further, the one or more sensors 70 can be interpreted as one of the plurality of components. Therefore, when the card is turned on, the components are on because the card is on.
Poidomani et al. teaches read head sensors but is silent to reciting capacitive sensors.
Berntstein et al. teaches the use of capacitive interface including two capacitors to transfer data to/ from the card to the reader/ writer (abstract+ and plates 125+). This capacitive interface is interpreted as detecting the read head as it is used to communicate data, and the data communication includes the detection to be able to communicate. The recitation that an apparatus or structural element is operable to do a thing does not have to do that thing to be anticipated. Thus, the prior art of capacitive sensors communicating data is interpreted as operable to sense a read head.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to use capacitive sensors to communicate using capacitive means such as for alignment, outputting data only when a connection is made (efficiency), speed, transparency, easy to integrate into ICs, and versatility as they can be used to detect speed, acceleration and other parameters.
Re the limitation that the first and second capacitive sensors are part of first and second capacitive circuits, the Examiner notes that the sensors of 70 of Poidomani et al. are interpreted as connected to circuitry/ processor of the card and thus would have been obvious to have been formed with two circuits in order to connect to the card circuitry and determine a read/ direction detection. Simply put, a sensor is a circuit element and therefore two sensors are different circuits, even if they are connected to a common processor, for example.
In Bernstein, the plates 125+, as capacitive sensors, are interpreted to form circuits, in that they are connected to interface 300, wherein a “circuit” can be interpreted as the circuitry of the card and a single given plate, and thus each plate separately connected such as to 300, can be interpreted as constituting a different circuit via its connectivity to the card and/ or to the interface circuitry 300/ microprocessor, circuit 110, etc. (each plate forms a circuit with the circuit 300). Alternatively, even if viewed as a single circuit, it would have been obvious to make separable into two circuits since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPT 177, 179) motivated by system constraints, circuit design, distributed computing/ processing, redundancy/backup, etc. To clarify, as no direct ohmic contact is made for data transmission, the capacitive plates 125+ in connection with the circuit 300 are interpreted to for sensor circuits which detect capacitance corresponding to a material (read-head/ plates of reader 15) because communication of data occurs and thus capacitance is detected implicitly through the communication, as if no capacitance was detected no communication of data takes place.
Additionally, re the limitation that the circuits are operable to use the sensors to detect capacitance corresponding to a particular material, the Examiner noes that the claim is not drawn to a system and it appears the limitations regarding the read head serve to limit the structure of the sensor/ sensing, yet the Examiner notes a sensor capable of sensing capacitance is capable of detecting a capacitance of a read head/ material, in that is detects/ senses capacitance and thus reads on the limitation by detecting capacitance corresponding to a material (caused by the presence of the material).
Re claim 12, Poidomani et al. teaches the card includes a battery (abstract).
Re claim 13, Poidomani et al. teaches a processor (FIG. 3).
Re claim 14, display 58 can be interpreted as a second electronic device to communicate second information, wherein the displaying of second information is an obvious expedient to aid in use of the card, provide instructions/information, etc.
Re claim 15, a driving circuit (FIG. 3+ including the outputting of driver signals from the broadcaster). It would have been obvious that circuitry is responsible for outputting signals from the broadcaster.
Re claims 16-17, paragraph [0010] teaches a magnetic stripe encoder using current and alternating direction, noting it would have been obvious to vary magnitude based on the signal.
Re claim 18, port 77 can be an RF port, and thus RFID is an obvious expedient for such communications. FIG. 2 and paragraph [0077] teaches a plurality of displays, such as LEDs. FIG. 3 shows a processor. Though silent to EMV chip, the Examiner notes that the use of the card for financial transactions is well known and obvious (see paragraph [0061] +). Therefore, the use of an EMV chip is an obvious expedient for financial transactions, especially since processor/chips are taught. For purposes of Examination the Examiner has interpreted an EMV chip as a chip used for financial transactions (FIG. 2+).
Re claim 19, paragraph [0088] teaches different radio frequency standards, and therefore, the use of different frequencies is an obvious expedient, especially as communication standards typically are defined within a range of acceptable frequencies. Alternatively, the device is able to communicate at a plurality of different frequencies, depending on the use (frequency of use) of the card.
Re claim 20, the limitations are taught (FIG. 3 which shows the processor connected to the broadcaster/driving circuit).
Re claim 21, the device is operable to communicate to a plurality of read heads, such as read heads of different card readers at different locations based on where the card is used.
Re claim 25, though silent to the sensors being orthogonal to the swipe direction, the Examiner notes that the claims do not recite when or in what capacity the card is swiped in. For example, the Examiner would swipe the card in the air such that the detectors are orthogonal to the swipe direction, or the detectors could be interpreted as "arranged" orthogonal to the swipe direction when "arranged" means that an axis passing through the sensors/card is orthogonal to the swipe direction, for example. Since "arranged" and "a swipe direction" is sufficiently broad, the Examiner notes that the prior art is capable of reading on such limitations.
Re claim 26, FIG. 3 shows the sensors in the card swipe direction when the swipe direction is interpreted that way.
Re claim 27, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 19.
Re claim 28, first through third conductive segments that are offset and connected can be seen through FIG. 5 which shows the lines from the processor to the broadcaster, wherein different segments of the lines feeding into the broadcaster can be interpreted as offset conductive segments on the conductive lines.
Re claim 29, FIG. 5 shows that different elements (line segments, diodes, resistors, etc.) are interconnected on lines. Therefore, the use of vias to connect to resistors and diodes is an obvious expedient, wherein at least 3 vias are interpreted to be included when attaching a diode and resistor for example, with one via on each end of each element.
Re claim 33, orthogonally arranged has been discussed above re claim 25.
Claims 22-24 and 30-32 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./Bernstein et al., as discussed above, in view of Power (US 8052052).
Re claim 22, the teachings of Poidomani et al. / Bernstein et al. have been discussed above but are silent to an inertial movement sensor.
Power teaches the use of a transducer 212 that has a type of inertial movement sensor (acceleration) that detects when customer 112 (FIG. 1) removes the card from the storage location.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this as a means to provide an enable signal, for example.
Re claim 23, a swipe is interpreted as the movement of the card out of the storage location, as discussed above re claim 22.
Re claim 24, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 30, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 22.
Re claim 31, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 23.
Re claim 32, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 24.
Claims 11-21, 25-29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al. (US 20070034700) in view of Shoemaker et al. (US 20080116285).
Re claim 11, Poidomani et al. teaches a card comprising a button (28/38), an electronic device operable to communicate first information to a read head of a magnetic stripe reader (emulator 26 and that emulator cards are electronic cards); and first and second sensors detecting the read head (paragraph [0098]). Though silent to specifically reciting capacitive sensors, Poidomani et al. teaches the sensors can take various forms including other alternatives apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art (physical switches, pressure sensors, or other alternatives). Accordingly, the use of capacitive sensors are known in the art as an alternative means for sensing coupling, for example, and therefore would produce expected results. The button (28) receives manual input (pressing) and causes the device to operate for a period of time, as the card is enabled. Re the limitation that the manual input causes said electronic device to operate for a period of time, the Examiner notes that pressing of the buttons/switches (28/38) activates the card/powers on the card/selects accounts/etc. which causes the device to operate for a period of time, as pressing such buttons is part of using the card which includes operation of the electronic device.
Re the limitation that the card comprises a plurality of components, the Examiner note that such limitations are taught (FIG. 2 wherein 30, 32, 38, etc. are interpreted as components), including the components of the sensors and buttons as discussed above. The Examiner notes that the card turns on via pushing of the power button, which enables the card to operate for a period of time in response to the manual input (button pushing), while one component is on, such as the power indication light 30. Further, the one or more sensors 70 can be interpreted as one of the plurality of components. Therefore, when the card is turned on, the components are on because the card is on.
Poidomani et al. teaches read head sensors but is silent to reciting capacitive sensors.
Shoemaker et al. teaches the use swipe detection sensors that enable the card to determine the swipe direction before the representing or encoding data is provided. Further, Shoemaker et al. teaches (paragraph [0092]+) that sensors can be provided on the card, including capacitive sensors, to improve accuracy in determining whether a swipe is going to take place. It would have been obvious to sense a head as part of the determining whether a swipe is going to take place, in order to determine when data is to be output, which is known and conventional in order to provide data when required (detecting a read head is obvious in light of reciting that determining a swipe, which is by a read head, is to take place). Namely, it would have been obvious that detecting a swipe is going to take place obviates detecting a read head (as the read head is swiped by the card). The claim recitation of detecting a read head is interpreted to be obviated by the detecting of a swipe. Capacitive sensors have been taught above, and thus there use for read head detecting is applying/ trying one of a plurality of known means for expected results (detection).
Simply put, the capacitive sensors detect capacitances/ changes thereof and such detecting detects the presence of a read head by detecting that a swipe is about to occur, which conventionally is based on a read head being sensed. The claim does not recite which “material” is detected.
The recitation that an apparatus or structural element is operable to do a thing does not have to do that thing to be anticipated. Thus, the prior art teaching of capacitive sensors has been discussed above, as part of a read process, which includes a read head, and thus the prior art reads on being operable to detect a read head.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to use capacitive sensors to detect the heads in order to know when/how to output the data, by determining when a swipe is going to take place (head detecting). It would have been obvious for the capacitive sensors detect when a swipe is to occur by detecting the heads as such would be a detectable change for the capacitive sensors. A benefit of capacitive sensors include speed, transparency, replacing physical sensors, easy to integrated into ICs, and versatility as they can be used to detect speed, acceleration and other parameters.
For clarification, and in response to the limitation of “detecting capacitance” the Examiner has interpreted the capacitive sensors, are operable to detect capacitances which indicates/ detects that a read will take place, and by extension a read head is detected, because the sensors are triggered when a swipe is about to take place, and therefore are operable to detect the presence of the magnetic read head when they are triggered right before the card is swiped through the head, thus providing an indication (detection) of the presence of the read head by a capacitance being measured. The claim does not recite that a capacitance value of the read is measured/ determined/ compared to a threshold of a reader capacitance, for example.
Re the limitation that the first and second capacitive sensors are part of first and second capacitive circuits which detect the read head by detecting capacitance corresponding to a material, the Examiner notes Poidomani et al. teaches the use of coil wrapped cores as an emulator (electronic device operable to communicate information to a read head of a magnetic stripe reader). Shoemaker teaches in paragraph [0057]+ that the swipe/ read head is detected by 1) detecting the magnetic field exerted by the reader head and/or 2) proximity sensors.
Regarding 1), the detection of the swipe/ read head by detecting the magnetic field exerted by the reader, the Examiner has interpreted this as the emulator detects the presence of a reading head using the magnetic signals emitted by the reader which in turn cause changes in capacitance of coils (of the emulator), letting the processor know that the card is placed on a reader so it can emit the expected information encoded as electromagnetic fields, thus sensing capacitance (changes).
Regarding 2), proximity sensors are interpreted to include/obviate capacitive sensors (type of proximity sensor) and therefore capacitive sensors are an obvious type of proximity sensor for detecting magnetic capacitance changes associated with an object, such as the magnetic field exerted by a reader head, wherein having them as part of a circuits is an obvious expedient for connectivity, distributed computing, backup, independent detection, etc.
Though silent to first and second circuitry that includes the first and second sensors, the Examiner notes that the emulator is interpreted as having a plurality of coils/ reconfigurable portions to output the signal to the read head. The plurality of coils are interpreted as sensing/ detecting as described above, and are connected to the circuitry of the card itself. Though silent to first and second circuits, the Examiner note that as the card is connected together including circuitry, it would have been obvious for the sensing means to be part of a circuit. Therefore, a given coil/ segment can be interpreted to make up first circuitry and another given segment/ portion can be interpreted to make up second circuitry as each “circuit” can be interpreted as the circuitry of the card and each coil/ segment plate can be interpreted as constituting a different circuit via its connectivity to the card and/ or to the interface circuitry/ chip, etc. Alternatively, even if viewed as a “single circuit”, it would have been obvious to make separable into two circuits since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPT 177, 179) motivated by system constraints, circuit design, complexity, distributed computing/ processing, redundancy/backup, etc. Again, to clarify, it would have been obvious for the sensors to be part of circuits in order for them to be controlled and data sent and received, wherein a first circuit can be interpreted as including a sensor and the second circuit of the second sensor, even further, paragraph [0076]+ teaches the swipe direction is determined from swipe sensor 1302. The claim does not recite which “material” has its capacitance sensed. As Poidomani et al. teaches 2 sensors and Shoemaker et al. teaches capacitive sensors, the Examiner believes such teachings obviate the limitations, as a circuit can be intpereted as formed separately with each sensor and associated circuitry, as discussed above. Simply put, a sensor is a circuit element and therefore two sensors are different circuits, even if they are connected to a common processor, for example.
Additionally, re the limitation that the circuits are operable to use the sensors to detect capacitance corresponding to a particular material, the Examiner noes that the claim is not drawn to a system and that the read head serves to limit the structure of the sensor/ sensing, and a sensor capable of sensing capacitance is capable of detecting a capacitance of a read head/ material, in that is detects/ senses capacitance (changes) corresponding to the read head (material).
Re claim 12, Poidomani et al. teaches the card includes a battery (abstract).
Re claim 13, Poidomani et al. teaches a processor (FIG. 3).
Re claim 14, display 58 can be interpreted as a second electronic device to communicate second information, wherein the displaying of second information is an obvious expedient to aid in use of the card, provide instructions/information, etc.
Re claim 15, a driving circuit (FIG. 3+ including the outputting of driver signals from the broadcaster). It would have been obvious that circuitry is responsible for outputting signals from the broadcaster.
Re claims 16-17, paragraph [0010] teaches a magnetic stripe encoder using current and alternating direction, noting it would have been obvious to vary magnitude based on the signal.
Re claim 18, port 77 can be an RF port, and thus RFID is an obvious expedient for such communications. FIG. 2 and paragraph [0077] teaches a plurality of displays, such as LEDs. FIG. 3 shows a processor. Though silent to EMV chip, the Examiner notes that the use of the card for financial transactions is well known and obvious (see paragraph [0061] +). Therefore, the use of an EMV chip is an obvious expedient for financial transactions, especially since processor/chips are taught. For purposes of Examination the Examiner has interpreted an EMV chip as a chip used for financial transactions (FIG. 2+).
Re claim 19, paragraph [0088] teaches different radio frequency standards, and therefore, the use of different frequencies is an obvious expedient, especially as communication standards typically are defined within a range of acceptable frequencies. Alternatively, the device is able to communicate at a plurality of different frequencies, depending on the use (frequency of use) of the card.
Re claim 20, the limitations are taught (FIG. 3 which shows the processor connected to the broadcaster/driving circuit).
Re claim 21, the device is operable to communicate to a plurality of read heads, such as read heads of different card readers at different locations based on where the card is used.
Re claim 25, though silent to the sensors being orthogonal to the swipe direction, the Examiner notes that the claims do not recite when or in what capacity the card is swiped in. For example, the Examiner would swipe the card in the air such that the detectors are orthogonal to the swipe direction, or the detectors could be interpreted as "arranged" orthogonal to the swipe direction when "arranged" means that an axis passing through the sensors/card is orthogonal to the swipe direction, for example. Since "arranged" and "a swipe direction" is sufficiently broad, the Examiner notes that the prior art is capable of reading on such limitations.
Re claim 26, FIG. 3 shows the sensors in the card swipe direction when the swipe direction is interpreted that way.
Re claim 27, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 19.
Re claim 28, first through third conductive segments that are offset and connected can be seen through FIG. 5 which shows the lines from the processor to the broadcaster, wherein different segments of the lines feeding into the broadcaster can be interpreted as offset conductive segments on the conductive lines.
Re claim 29, FIG. 5 shows that different elements (line segments, diodes, resistors, etc.) are interconnected on lines. Therefore, the use of vias to connect to resistors and diodes is an obvious expedient, wherein at least 3 vias are interpreted to be included when attaching a diode and resistor for example, with one via on each end of each element.
Re claim 33, orthogonally arranged has been discussed above re claim 25.
Claims 22-24 and 30-32 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./Shoemaker et al., as discussed above, in view of Power (US 8052052).
Re claim 22, the teachings of Poidomani et al. / Shoemaker et al. have been discussed above but are silent to an inertial movement sensor.
Power teaches the use of a transducer 212 that has a type of inertial movement sensor (acceleration) that detects when customer 112 (FIG. 1) removes the card from the storage location.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this as a means to provide an enable signal, for example.
Re claim 23, a swipe is interpreted as the movement of the card out of the storage location, as discussed above re claim 22.
Re claim 24, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 30, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 22.
Re claim 31, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 23.
Re claim 32, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 24.
Claims 11-21, 25-29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al. (US 20070034700) in view of Huster et al. (US 20080000477).
Re claim 11, Poidomani et al. teaches a card comprising a button (28/38), an electronic device operable to communicate first information to a read head of a magnetic stripe reader (emulator 26 and that emulator cards are electronic cards); and first and second sensors detecting the read head (paragraph [0098]). Though silent to specifically reciting capacitive sensors, Poidomani et al. teaches the sensors can take various forms including other alternatives apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art (physical switches, pressure sensors, or other alternatives). Accordingly, the use of capacitive sensors are known in the art as an alternative means for sensing coupling, for example, and therefore would produce expected results. The button (28) receives manual input (pressing) and causes the device to operate for a period of time, as the card is enabled. Re the limitation that the manual input causes said electronic device to operate for a period of time, the Examiner notes that pressing of the buttons/switches (28/38) activates the card/powers on the card/selects accounts/etc. which causes the device to operate for a period of time, as pressing such buttons is part of using the card which includes operation of the electronic device.
Re the limitation that the card comprises a plurality of components, the Examiner note that such limitations are taught (FIG. 2 wherein 30, 32, 38, etc. are interpreted as components). The Examiner notes that the card turns on via pushing of the power button, which enables the card to operate for a period of time in response to the manual input (button pushing), while one component is on, such as the power indication light 30. Further, the one or more sensors 70 can be interpreted as a plurality of components. Therefore, when the card is turned on, the components are on because the card is on.
The teachings of Poidomani et al. have been discussed above, where Poidomani et al. teaches read head sensors but is silent to reciting capacitive sensors.
Huster et al. (paragraph [0151]+ teaches the use sensors to detect card insertion into slots such as switches/ contact sensors, proximity sensors, capacitive sensors, hall effect / magnetic sensors, force sensors (physical), electrical sensors, resistive sensors, etc., thus teaching the use of capacitive sensors to detect card insertion (into a slot with read head). Thus, the prior art sensor is capable of sensing insertion, and a read head is a portion of an enclosure.
At the time the invention was made, the Examiner notes it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use such capacitive detecting means as one of a plurality of known technologies (switches) for detecting of card insertion related events, and thus would provide predictable results for sensing a read head by proximity/ presence detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try to use capacitive sensors to detect, as suggested by Huster et al., for detecting a read head, as capacitive read heads are taught by Huster et al. as configured to detect card insertion, and thus detecting read heads would be obvious to try as an expected result of such sensors for a card such as taught by Poidomani et al. The recitation that an apparatus or structural element is operable to do a thing does not have to do that thing to be anticipated. As capacitive sensors are taught as being configured to sense, it would be well within the ordinary skill that they could be used to sense a read head.
Re the limitation that the first and second capacitive sensors are part of first and second capacitive circuits which detect the read head by detecting capacitance corresponding to a material, the Examiner notes that capacitance detection has been taught above. Though silent to reciting first and second circuits, the Examiner notes it would have been obvious for the sensors to be connected via circuitry for using known means for connection of electronic devices. Though silent to first and second circuits, the Examiner note that as the card is connected together including circuitry, it would have been obvious for the sensing to be part of a circuit and the use of separate circuits would have been obvious to provide expected benefits of distributed computing, redundancy/ backup/ independent sensing, system constraints, complexity, etc., and alternatively, even if viewed as a single circuit, it would have been obvious to make separable into two circuits since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPT 177, 179).
Additionally, re the limitation that the circuits are operable to use the sensors to detect capacitance corresponding to a particular material, the Examiner noes that the claim is not drawn to a system and that the read head serves to limit the structure of the sensor/ sensing, and a sensor capable of sensing capacitance is capable of detecting a capacitance of a read head/ material, in that is detects/ senses capacitance via detecting the head which is of a particular material.
To reiterate, plural sensors (capacitive) are taught as being used for detection of card insertion, including capacitive, proximity, Hall, have been taught by Huster et al. As Poidomani et al. teaches a card with similar sensors, the specific teachings of Huster et al. of similar sensors and including capacitive sensors, obviates a combination for expected results of detection. Simply put, a sensor is a circuit element and therefore two sensors are different circuits, even if they are connected to a common processor, for example.
Re claim 12, Poidomani et al. teaches the card includes a battery (abstract).
Re claim 13, Poidomani et al. teaches a processor (FIG. 3).
Re claim 14, display 58 can be interpreted as a second electronic device to communicate second information, wherein the displaying of second information is an obvious expedient to aid in use of the card, provide instructions/information, etc.
Re claim 15, a driving circuit (FIG. 3+ including the outputting of driver signals from the broadcaster). It would have been obvious that circuitry is responsible for outputting signals from the broadcaster.
Re claims 16-17, paragraph [0010] teaches a magnetic stripe encoder using current and alternating direction, noting it would have been obvious to vary magnitude based on the signal.
Re claim 18, port 77 can be an RF port, and thus RFID is an obvious expedient for such communications. FIG. 2 and paragraph [0077] teaches a plurality of displays, such as LEDs. FIG. 3 shows a processor. Though silent to EMV chip, the Examiner notes that the use of the card for financial transactions is well known and obvious (see paragraph [0061] +). Therefore, the use of an EMV chip is an obvious expedient for financial transactions, especially since processor/chips are taught. For purposes of Examination the Examiner has interpreted an EMV chip as a chip used for financial transactions (FIG. 2+).
Re claim 19, paragraph [0088] teaches different radio frequency standards, and therefore, the use of different frequencies is an obvious expedient, especially as communication standards typically are defined within a range of acceptable frequencies. Alternatively, the device is able to communicate at a plurality of different frequencies, depending on the use (frequency of use) of the card.
Re claim 20, the limitations are taught (FIG. 3 which shows the processor connected to the broadcaster/driving circuit).
Re claim 21, the device is operable to communicate to a plurality of read heads, such as read heads of different card readers at different locations based on where the card is used.
Re claim 25, though silent to the sensors being orthogonal to the swipe direction, the Examiner notes that the claims do not recite when or in what capacity the card is swiped in. For example, the Examiner would swipe the card in the air such that the detectors are orthogonal to the swipe direction, or the detectors could be interpreted as "arranged" orthogonal to the swipe direction when "arranged" means that an axis passing through the sensors/card is orthogonal to the swipe direction, for example. Since "arranged" and "a swipe direction" is sufficiently broad, the Examiner notes that the prior art is capable of reading on such limitations.
Re claim 26, FIG. 3 shows the sensors in the card swipe direction when the swipe direction is interpreted that way.
Re claim 27, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 19.
Re claim 28, first through third conductive segments that are offset and connected can be seen through FIG. 5 which shows the lines from the processor to the broadcaster, wherein different segments of the lines feeding into the broadcaster can be interpreted as offset conductive segments on the conductive lines.
Re claim 29, FIG. 5 shows that different elements (line segments, diodes, resistors, etc.) are interconnected on lines. Therefore, the use of vias to connect to resistors and diodes is an obvious expedient, wherein at least 3 vias are interpreted to be included when attaching a diode and resistor for example, with one via on each end of each element.
Re claim 33, orthogonally arranged has been discussed above re claim 25.
Claims 22-24 and 30-32 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./Huster et al., as discussed above, in view of Power (US 8052052).
Re claim 22, the teachings of Poidomani et al. / Huster et al. have been discussed above but are silent to an inertial movement sensor.
Power teaches the use of a transducer 212 that has a type of inertial movement sensor (acceleration) that detects when customer 112 (FIG. 1) removes the card from the storage location.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this as a means to provide an enable signal, for example.
Re claim 23, a swipe is interpreted as the movement of the card out of the storage location, as discussed above re claim 22.
Re claim 24, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 30, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 22.
Re claim 31, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 23.
Re claim 32, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 24.
Claims 11-21, 25-29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al., as discussed above, in view of Foo et al. (U S8317103).
Re claim 11, the teachings of Poidomani et al. have been discussed above, including read head sensors, but is silent to reciting capacitive sensors.
Foo et al. teaches capacitive swipe sensors when a read head travels over a capacitive sensor from either side of the card (FIG 13). This is interpreted as reading on detecting the read head (material) with a capacitive sensors.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to use a known type of detection for sensing the read head, with expected results.
Re the limitation of first and second sensors on first and second circuits, as the sensors are populated at either end of the card, it would have been obvious to have separate circuits, such as to connect each sensor for direct control. One would have been motivated to have two sensors for the well-known and conventional direction of swipe detection, so it would have been known how to output the data based on the swipe direction.
Though silent to first and second circuits, the Examiner note that as the card is connected together including circuitry, it would have been obvious for the sensors to be part of a circuit. Therefore, a sensor and circuitry can be interpreted to make up first circuitry and another sensor and circuitry can be interpreted to make up second circuitry as each “circuit” can be interpreted as the circuitry of the card and each sensor. Alternatively, even if viewed as a “single circuit”, it would have been obvious to make separable into two circuits since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPT 177, 179) motivated by system constraints, circuit design, complexity, distributed computing/ processing, redundancy/backup, etc. Simply put, a sensor is a circuit element and therefore two sensors are different circuits, even if they are connected to a common processor, for example.
Additionally, re the limitation that the circuits are operable to use the sensors to detect capacitance corresponding to a particular material, the Examiner noes that the claim is not drawn to a system and that the read head serves to limit the structure of the sensor/ sensing, and a sensor capable of sensing capacitance is capable of detecting a capacitance of a read head/ material, in that is detects/ senses capacitance (changes) corresponding to the read head (material).
Re claim 12, Poidomani et al. teaches the card includes a battery (abstract).
Re claim 13, Poidomani et al. teaches a processor (FIG. 3).
Re claim 14, display 58 can be interpreted as a second electronic device to communicate second information, wherein the displaying of second information is an obvious expedient to aid in use of the card, provide instructions/information, etc.
Re claim 15, a driving circuit (FIG. 3+ including the outputting of driver signals from the broadcaster). It would have been obvious that circuitry is responsible for outputting signals from the broadcaster.
Re claims 16-17, paragraph [0010] teaches a magnetic stripe encoder using current and alternating direction, noting it would have been obvious to vary magnitude based on the signal.
Re claim 18, port 77 can be an RF port, and thus RFID is an obvious expedient for such communications. FIG. 2 and paragraph [0077] teaches a plurality of displays, such as LEDs. FIG. 3 shows a processor. Though silent to EMV chip, the Examiner notes that the use of the card for financial transactions is well known and obvious (see paragraph [0061] +). Therefore, the use of an EMV chip is an obvious expedient for financial transactions, especially since processor/chips are taught. For purposes of Examination the Examiner has interpreted an EMV chip as a chip used for financial transactions (FIG. 2+).
Re claim 19, paragraph [0088] teaches different radio frequency standards, and therefore, the use of different frequencies is an obvious expedient, especially as communication standards typically are defined within a range of acceptable frequencies. Alternatively, the device is able to communicate at a plurality of different frequencies, depending on the use (frequency of use) of the card.
Re claim 20, the limitations are taught (FIG. 3 which shows the processor connected to the broadcaster/driving circuit).
Re claim 21, the device is operable to communicate to a plurality of read heads, such as read heads of different card readers at different locations based on where the card is used.
Re claim 25, though silent to the sensors being orthogonal to the swipe direction, the Examiner notes that the claims do not recite when or in what capacity the card is swiped in. For example, the Examiner would swipe the card in the air such that the detectors are orthogonal to the swipe direction, or the detectors could be interpreted as "arranged" orthogonal to the swipe direction when "arranged" means that an axis passing through the sensors/card is orthogonal to the swipe direction, for example. Since "arranged" and "a swipe direction" is sufficiently broad, the Examiner notes that the prior art is capable of reading on such limitations.
Re claim 26, FIG. 3 shows the sensors in the card swipe direction when the swipe direction is interpreted that way.
Re claim 27, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 19.
Re claim 28, first through third conductive segments that are offset and connected can be seen through FIG. 5 which shows the lines from the processor to the broadcaster, wherein different segments of the lines feeding into the broadcaster can be interpreted as offset conductive segments on the conductive lines.
Re claim 29, FIG. 5 shows that different elements (line segments, diodes, resistors, etc.) are interconnected on lines. Therefore, the use of vias to connect to resistors and diodes is an obvious expedient, wherein at least 3 vias are interpreted to be included when attaching a diode and resistor for example, with one via on each end of each element.
Re claim 33, orthogonally arranged has been discussed above re claim 25.
Claims 22-24 and 30-32 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al./Food et al., as discussed above, in view of Power (US 8052052).
Re claim 22, the teachings of Poidomani et al. / Foo et al. have been discussed above but are silent to an inertial movement sensor.
Power teaches the use of a transducer 212 that has a type of inertial movement sensor (acceleration) that detects when customer 112 (FIG. 1) removes the card from the storage location.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this as a means to provide an enable signal, for example.
Re claim 23, a swipe is interpreted as the movement of the card out of the storage location, as discussed above re claim 22.
Re claim 24, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 30, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 22.
Re claim 31, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 23.
Re claim 32, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 24.
Claims 25 and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al/Bernstein et al., as discussed above, in view of Narendra et al. (US 20070023532).
The teachings of Poidomani et al. /Shoemaker et al. have been discussed above but are silent to explicitly reciting orthogonally arranged.
Narendra et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0023] +).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for detecting driving tracks.
Claims 25 and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al/ Huster et al., as discussed above, in view of Narendra et al. (US 20070023532).
The teachings of Poidomani et al. /Huster et al. have been discussed above but are silent to explicitly reciting orthogonally arranged.
Narendra et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0023] +).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for detecting driving tracks.
Claims 25 and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al/Shoemaker et al., as discussed above, in view of Narendra et al. (US 20070023532).
The teachings of Poidomani et al. /Shoemaker et al. have been discussed above but are silent to explicitly reciting orthogonally arranged.
Narendra et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0023] +).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for detecting driving tracks.
Claims 25 and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poidomani et al/ Foo et al., as discussed above, in view of Narendra et al. (US 20070023532).
The teachings of Poidomani et al. / Foo et al. have been discussed above but are silent to explicitly reciting orthogonally arranged.
Narendra et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0023] +).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for detecting driving tracks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the rejection and remarks above. The Examiner notes that the issue of capacitive sensors has been discussed above in the rejections. The sensors are interpreted as being part of the card structure, and thus implicitly teaching as circuity/ attached/ connected thereto. With regard to separate circuits, the Examiner notes that what constitutes a sensor has not been recited in the claim. For example, is the sensor merely a function performed by the emulator/ processor, or a software component, or is it a combination of a coil and sensor or coil and chip, or coil and chip and circuitry? Accordingly, the Examiner has interpreted that the sensor/ sensing means of the prior art, and the recitation of first and second capacitance detection circuits, can be intpereted as first and second circuits. Simply put, a sensor is a circuit element and therefore two sensors are different circuits, even if they are connected to a common processor, for example. Even so, the Examiner notes that case law obviating the separate of parts has been discussed above, for expected results (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.” and while making integral further obviates making separable (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); but see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form “a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece.” Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
Re the limitation regarding detecting the read head by detecting capacitance corresponding to a material, the Examiner that the type of material has not been clarified to be a finger, a read head, etc. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., head material based detection) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus Shoemakers swipe detection is interpreted to read on capacitance. Capacitance sensors are circuit elements interpreted to read on first and second capacitance detection circuits as recited in the claims. Foo is