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 pre-AIA 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 pre-AIA 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Osterweil (US 20060283958) in view of Blossom (US 20030111527) and Pennaz et al. (US 20060227523).
Re claim 6, Osterweil teaches:
an electronic device operable to communicate information serially to a magnetic stripe reader (conductor 104 which generates a magnetic field to communicate to a magnetic stripe reader);
A first layer of magnetic shielding located directly above said electronic device in a thickness direction of the card and operable to redirect magnetic fields (one of the layers of ferromagnetic material 102);
A second layer of magnetic shielding that is a separate physical layer distinct from the first layer, located directly above said first layer and comprising a different magnetic shielding material than said first layer (another layer of the ferromagnetic material 102).
Osterweil is sient to serial communication.
Blossom teaches serial communication (paragraph [0039]+).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to mimic traditional magnetic card output with an emulator.
Osterweil/ Blossom is silent to a separate distinct second magnetic shielding layer directly above the first layer and of a different material than the first shielding layer.
Pennaz et al. teaches a card with emulator, in which there is at least one layer directly above the emulator (FIG. 2A+). A layer directly above the emulator that generates magnetic fields/ signals is therefore interpreted as a magnetic shielding layer as it covers/ shields the layer. The claim does not require that the second magnetic shielding layer reduces magnetic fields, redirects fields, etc., as shielding is interpreted as covering or overlaying, for example.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to use known techniques for card manufacturing for costs, protection of components, ease of forming, etc.
Re claim 7, a battery is taught (paragraph [0046]+).
Re claim 8, a processor is taught (paragraph [0071]+).
Claims 6-14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20090152365) in view of Okada et al. (US 5959289) and Blossom (US 20030111527).
Re claim 6, Lin et al. teaches an electronic device (striplines per FIG. 1+) operable to communicate information to a magnetic stripe reader; a first layer of magnetic shielding directly above the device to redirect fields (static areas per FIG. 2), and though silent to a second separate layer of magnetic shielding directly above the first layer with a different material, the Examiner notes that the second magnetic shielding has not been recited to alter or block or adjust magnetic fields, as it is recited as a shielding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a separate layer covering the stripe area, as is conventional in the art.
Nonetheless, Okada teaches such limitations at 18 covering/ protecting.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for wear/ protection.
Li et al./ Okada is silent to serial communication.
Blossom teaches such limitations (paragraph [0039]+).
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 present the data in a format for traditional magnetic stripe cards.
Re claim 7, Li et al. teaches a battery 412.
Re claim 8, a processor is taught (FIG. 1+) as an obvious expedient for card processing steps.
Re claim 9, Li et al. teaches a first electronic device operable to generate a magnetic field to communicate information to a magnetic stripe reader without the use of a static magnetic stripe (bit striplines 120 communicate data at dynamic sections 108 that are not a stripe as they are low coercivity inserts/ bits); at least one magnetic field limiting layer located directly between the device and a front/ rear surface of the card (104/204 is interpreted as a field limiting layer because the dynamic magnetic bits are recorded by active areas 220 and 222 on the array 224 but the fields of 224 are insufficient to alter the static magnetic data bits 214 of high coercivity, thus it blocks them from altering). This surface/ magnetic field limiting layer comprises magnetic shielding operable to selectively pass and block magnetic fields generated by the electronic device (dynamic parts are programmed and thus fields pass at the holes).
Li et al. is sient to serial communications.
Blossom teaches such limitations (paragraph [0039]+).
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 present the data in a format for traditional magnetic stripe cards.
Re claim 10, there are spaces (openings) in FIG. 2.
Re claim 11, the layer 204 is directly on the striplines (FIG. 2) and the spaces pass a magnetic field in that they program 210/212 at the spaces via the magnetic fields.
Re claims 12-14, absent a more specific recited limitation, the layer 104 is interpreted as a plurality of layers (same material). The limitations do not distinguish one layer from the other. The Examiner notes that the magnetic stripe has high coercivity sections that are blocking the magnetic fields from the electronic device, this is interpreted as blocking communication from the device and a read head of a reader. The layers can be interpreted as sections on opposite sides, such as the left and right sides, as the claim does not recite that one layer is below and one layer is above the electronic device. Nonetheless, the teachings of Okada have been discussed above as a second field limiting layer. A field limiting layer has not been defined in claims 12-13 and thus the presence of an additional layer such as per Okada is interpreted as a field limiting layer in that it creates more space to a reader and limits the strength of the field by increasing the distance/ providing another layer the field has to pass through. Re claim 14, a single layer blocking communication has been discussed above.
Claim 17-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gutman et al. (US 5834756) in view of Blossom, as discussed above.
Gutman et al. teaches a magnetic emulator configured to electromagnetically couple with a read head of a magnetic stripe reader without physical contact (abstract+ wherein the emulator communicates but does not physically touch the head head);
a processor (208) coupled to the emulator to control the emulator; a switching circuit to modulate direction and magnitude of current (col 6, lines 55+).
Gutman et al. is silent to serial generation.
Blossom teaches such limitations as discussed above.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to mimic traditional magnetic stripe card output.
Re claim 18, re FIG. 4 of Gutman et al. teaches circuit devices, the use of a PCB is an obvious expedient for accepted means of assembly/ manufacture.
Re claim 19, the coil of Gutman is interpreted as densely wrapped, wherein it would have been obvious to be densely wrapped for/ to control an expected output.
Claims 20-21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gutman et al./Blossom, as discussed above, in view of Narendra et al. (US 20070023532).
Re claim 20, the teachings of Gutman et al./ Blossom have been discussed above but are silent to read head detectors.
Narendra et al. teaches read head detectors to activate the emulator via the processor (abstract+ swipe sensors).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to activate when a read head is present, such as for power conservation.
Re claim 21, Gutman et al. teaches such limitations (col 3, lines 60+) so as to mimic traditional output to be picked up by the read head.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are not persuasive in light of the new rejections above. The Examiner notes that the Applicant doesn’t not specify what constitutes both shielding layers in all the claims, for example claim 1 recites what the first shielding does but not the second. Therefore, shielding is interpreted by the Examiner as a broad term. Layers that cover can be interpreted as shielding. Layers that physically have a thickness can be interpreted as field limiting layers due to increasing distance to a reader.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-9pm.
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