Superman cartoons 1941
Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed February 19, 2026. Claims 1-18 are pending and under examination. Claims 19-20 were previously canceled. Claims 1, 7-10, 13, and 16-18 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10, as currently amended, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 9-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler et al (US 2009/0166375) in view of Feigelson (US 2013/0166455) and in view of Yu (US 2011/0138275).
Regarding claims 1 and 10 –
Butler discloses a terminal for dispensing a non-volatile memory storage device for storing information to a user (par 13), comprising:
a display and a keypad; (par 18, 25)
a device dispenser; (par 29-30)
a processor (par 32) configured to:
provide a user interface to the user via the display and the keypad, (par 32)
wherein the device dispenser is configured to program the removable non-volatile memory storage device with the user-selected information prior to dispensing the removable non-volatile memory storage device to the user. (par 29-30)
Feigelson teaches, as Butler does not specifically disclose, receive user-selected private information from the selected source, (par 39-40, 42) and
transfer the received user-selected private information to the device dispenser (par 23);
wherein the device dispenser is configured to couple a removable non-volatile memory storage device to a programming connector located in the device dispenser and wherein the removable non-volatile memory storage device comprises a connector electrically coupled to a memory controller, the memory controller being coupled to one or more non-volatile digital memory devices. (par 22)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Butler and Feigelson for portability and ease of use.
Butler in view of Feigelson does not specifically disclose prompting the user, via the user interface, to select a source of user information and to identify user-selected information from that source to be stored. However, Yu does disclose prompting the user, via the user interface, to select a source of information and to identify user-selected information from that source. (abs, par 8-11, 29)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Butler and Feigelson with Yu for a more user-friendly process.
Regarding claims 2 and 11 -
Feigelson discloses, wherein the source is a remote website wherein the source of information is a remote website for a cryptocurrency exchange. (par 33)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Butler with Feigelson, such that cryptocurrency is stored rather than an amount that represents a credit amount or cash. The motivation for storing cryptocurrency instead of a credit amount, would be the desire or need to obtain greater flexibility in managing funds and use of those funds.
Regarding claims 3 and 12 -
Feigelson discloses wherein the requested information comprises a private key representing ownership of an amount of cryptocurrency. (par 41)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Butler with Feigelson, such that cryptocurrency is stored rather than an amount that represents a credit amount or cash. The motivation for storing cryptocurrency instead of a credit amount, would be the desire or need to obtain greater flexibility in managing funds and use of those funds.
Regarding claims 4 and 13 –
Feigelson discloses wherein private information (such as keys) is programmed on a removable non-volatile storage media in an encrypted format. (par 41).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Butler with Feigelson, motivated by the desire to obtain a more secure transaction, wherein the transaction is secure enough to be suitable for cryptocurrency – in other words, where the addition of encryption makes for a more secure transaction.
Regarding claims 5 and 14 –
Feigelson discloses wherein the key for the encrypted format is kept private in the terminal. (par 41-42).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Butler with Feigelson, motivated by the desire to obtain a more secure transaction, wherein the transaction is secure enough to be suitable for cryptocurrency – in other words, where the addition of encryption makes for a more secure transaction.
Regarding claims 9 and 18 –
Feigelson discloses wherein user identification information is programmed with the private information that is programmed on the removable non-volatile storage device. (par 39-40)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Butler with Feigelson, motivated by the desire to obtain a more secure transaction, wherein the transaction is secure enough to be suitable for cryptocurrency – in other words, where the addition of encryption makes for a more secure transaction.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler et al (US 2009/0166375) in view of Feigelson (US 2013/0166455) and in view of Yu (US 2011/0138275) and further in view of Franks (US 2006/0073883),
Butler in view of Feigelson and Yu discloses as above.
Regarding claims 8 and 17 –
Feigelson discloses wherein information is programmed on the removable non-volatile storage device in a password protected format. (par 39-40)
Feigelson does not expressly disclose wherein the information programmed, stored, dispensed, etc., is private user information. However Franks does disclose wherein the information programmed, stored, dispensed, etc., is private user information. (par 58, e.g. customer credit information)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Franks with Feigelson and Butler, motivated by the desire to obtain a more secure transaction, wherein the transaction is secure enough to be suitable for cryptocurrency – in other words, where the addition of encryption makes for a more secure transaction.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler et al (US 2009/0166375) and Feigelson (US 2013/0166455) and in view of Yu (US 2011/0138275), and further in view of Park et al (US 2009/0172265).
Butler in view of Feigelson and Yu discloses as above.
Regarding claims 6 and 15 –
Park discloses wherein a key for the encrypted format is kept private in a controller ( par 36 “memory controller 30 encrypts data of the flash file and stores the encrypted data in the data block, and stores an object header of the corresponding flash file, which includes a decryption key to decrypt the encrypted data, in the header block”) in the removable non-volatile storage device. (par 33 “flash memory device 10 includes a flash memory 20 and a memory controller”)
It would be obvious to combine Butler, Feigelson and Yu with the storage of Park in order to obtain greater security in transactions.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Butler et al (US 2009/0166375), Feigelson (US 2013/0166455) and Yu (US 2011/0138275), and further in view of Moore et al (US 2011/0302066).
Butler in view of Feigelson and Yu discloses as above.
Regarding claims 7 and 16 –
Moore discloses wherein the private information is programmed on the removable non-volatile storage device in a proprietary format. (par 34 this “tax information . . . stored in an XML or proprietary data format on one or more magnetic, semiconductor, flash, optical, or other like storage devices”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine It would be obvious to combine Butler, Feigelson and Yu with the proprietary format of Moore for greater information security.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park (US 2007/0102511) discloses a method of providing secured access with a payment device.
Simon (US 2021/0125111) discloses a hospitality services processing system.
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.
/Cristina Owen Sherr/ Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights