DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AJA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second RFID protocol" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 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 negated 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 2-11, and 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zalewski et al. (US 6771981) in view of Freund (US 20030187787).
Re claim 2, Zalewski et al. teaches a mobile communication device comprising:
processing circuitry (FIG. 2A+);
transceiver circuitry coupled to the processing circuitry and configured to transmit and receive wireless signals (FIG. 2A+); and
a memory (non-volatile memory of the cover 100 and implicit memory of the device itself) coupled to the processing circuitry and storing instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry cause the mobile communication device to:
receive first radio frequency identification (RFID) data and second RFID data from a user (through different covers, for example for different applications);
but Zalewski et al. is silent to receiving a designation of one of the first RFID data and the second RFID data as default RFID data from the user as Zalewski teaches separate covers that are removable, while Freund at paragraph [0040]+ teaches several accounts, and that a user can designate/ select one as the default account.
Re the limitation of receiving a designation of an RFID signaling protocol selected by the user from a list displayed on the mobile communications communication device, the RFID signaling protocol comprising at least one of frequency information, amplitude information, and keying scheme information; Zalewski teaches payment applications and other kinds of applications such as timetables, stocks, exchange rates, wherein the functions and applications can be combined into a multi-functional application module for the mobile station. Various applications are taught (FIG. 7+ shows hotel room access, parking access, credit card usage, etc.). Re the limitation of receiving a designation of an RFID “signaling protocol” selected by the user from a list “displayed on the mobile communications device” comprising at least one of frequency/ amplitude/ keying scheme information and using that protocol, as discussed above, Zalewski et al. teaches (FIG. 7+) that the mobile device (phone) is used to select the operation mode (the mobile station with cover for menu choices and that when the mobile station is switched on menus can be selected for the desired application (col 5, lines 5+). This selection of a function from a list displayed, implicitly includes a signaling protocol associated with it in order to perform the function (such as hotel, parking, etc.) A designation of a RFID signaling protocol is implicitly selected by the user selecting a use from a list displayed on the mobile device. The claim does not explicitly recite selecting a protocol from a list of different protocols displayed on the device. The Examiner notes that selection of an application is interpreted as selecting a type of RFID (its application/ usage, such as for a hotel) and it implicitly has a protocol that is designated. The selection of an application is interpreted as implicitly including a selected RFID type from a list, as the selection of a particular application implicitly is a designation of an RFID type, wherein the RFID type is defined by the application/ usage, such as a hotel, which would be a RFID type of a hotel usage.
Re the limitations of determine if the mobile communication device is within a proximal presence of an RFID reader by monitoring for probing signals of the RFID reader via the transceiver circuitry (this is obvious as RFID tags are in a state to be read as readers attempt to read); and
Re the limitation of in response to determining that the mobile communication device is in the proximal presence of the RFID reader and, without further input from the user, transmit, using the designated RFID signaling protocol, the one of the first RFID data and the second RFID data designated as the default RFID data to the RFID reader via the transceiver circuitry to emulate a passive RFID transponder (Zalewski et al teaches FIG. 5A+ wherein it is obvious that the RFID communicates in response to a probing signal as known in the art and functioning as a passive transponder is intpereted to be met by being read by a reader),
Re the newly added limitation that the transceiver circuitry is further configured to transmit and receive wireless signals for voice communication by the mobile communication device (FIG. 6+ shows a phone).
Thus Zalewski et al. teaches different removable covers can be used and thus is silent to first and second designation of data and the default data as recited.
Freund teaches that the RFID can be embedded/ electrically connected to a phone (paragraph [0062]+) and default data is provided (first and second data and default data per paragraph [0040]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to have an electrically connected connection so as to be set by the manufacturer for convenience, integration, and ease of use, while selecting/ providing different user data including default data increases convenience of use and organization of data.
Re claim 3, as discussed above, the use of menus to select and the selection of default data has been discussed above and has been interpreted to read on receiving a user input. Re the limitation of emulating an active transponder, the Examiner has interpreted this to be read on by RFID communication.
Re claim 4, the Examiner notes that though silent to specifically reciting associating a protocol with the first and second data, the Examiner notes that the user, by inputting the data that is communicated via radio, and its subsequent selection for a radio based communication, the data becomes associated with a protocol via its communication via a protocol, wherein the use of a protocol for wireless communication is an obvious expedient in order to comply with standards for transaction processing. For example, user data
Re claim 5, this has been discussed above re claim 4, wherein selecting an account and communicating via radio associates data with the protocol that is used to communicate it through the actual communication, in order to comply with protocols and standards for wireless transaction communications, as known in the art. Re claim 5, vendor can be interpreted as credit card companies as they provide a service to a business and individuals (credit and payment processing).
Re claim 6, the limitations have been discussed above re different accounts wherein one is a default, and the other is not a default, for example, when different accounts/ cards are desired as known in the art. Different accounts/ cards have been taught above, and using such different accounts/ cards is obvious based on which card/ account is desired to be used.
Re claim 7, telephone capability has been discussed above, and is intpereted to read on such limitations.
Re claim 8, the Examiner notes that associating a protocol is intpereted to occur via the registering/ setting of the accounts, as RF communication is obvious to be tied to a protocol in order for it to function with conventional systems (be compatible).
Re claim 9, the teachings have been discussed above re claim 5, wherein vendors are associated with an operating protocol.
Re claim 10, as discussed above, default data is established, and a protocol is implicit for transmission.
Re claim 11, telephone functionality has been discussed above and reads on such limitations of the mobile device.
Re claim 13, paragraph [0062]+ of Freund obviates an external device sending the data as it teaches the link is established by a manufacturer or by direct/indirect contact with an authority over a network.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zalewski et al./ Freund, as discussed above, in view of Relan et al. (US 20050216728).
Re claim 13, paragraph [0062]+ of Freund obviates an external device sending the data as it teaches the link is established by a manufacturer or by direct/indirect contact with an authority over a network.
Nonetheless, Relan et al. (US 20050216728) teaches an external device loading (paragraph [0053]+ and FIG. 2+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for security/ ease of use.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zalewski et al./ Freund, as discussed above, in view of Beard (US 20030135470).
Re claim 12 ,the teachings have been discussed above but are sient to annual entry via a user interface.
Beard teaches such limitations (paragraph [0030]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to permit for conventional manual entry of data for ease of use/ convenience.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Zalewski et al. teaches a removable cover on a phone for different applications. Freund teaches embedding/ electrical connection or removable connections. It would have been obvious to combine for a permanent solution and its expected results therein.
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 7-9pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL I WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876